7 ms·
https://www.sqlite.org/serverless.html https://www.sqlite.org/serverless.html (first published 2007, before the more recent misuse of the term began)
by peterkelly 6y ago
https://www.sqlite.org/serverless.html https://www.sqlite.org/serverless.html
(first published 2007, before the more recent misuse of the term began)
- codetrotter 6y agoWords can have multiple meanings and meanings of words can change.
- oarsinsync 6y agoAlmost like how the English language has been literally hijacked and destroyed. Language does change and evolve. The misuse and subsequent additional meaning for “literally” to now also be a simile for “figuratively” is a good example of how this isn’t necessarily always a good thing.
- dkjaudyeqooe 6y agoDo you mean like "incredible" and the like? It's just language, you might disagree but usage determines correctness (eventually).
- edgyquant 6y agoThe changing and evolution of language is neither a good nor bad thing, it just is.
- young_unixer 6y agoDisagree. If a change diminishes the clarity, efficiency or even the beauty of the language for no good reason, then it's a bad change, at least for the purposes of communication.
- jagthebeetle 6y agoTo be fair, we wouldn't have "literally" without a metaphoric interpretation of "literalis," "of or relating to letters." I always find this particular example to be somewhat self-contradicting for this reason.
- powersnail 6y agoHow is "literally" used as a simile for "figuratively"? A simile would require a sentence in which "literally" is compared to "figuratively", wouldn't it? My impression, as a non-native speaker, is that the misused "literally" is to indicate exaggeration, not the quality of being figurative.
- anon9001 6y ago> the misused "literally" is to indicate exaggeration Used to be. Now "literally" literally means "figuratively". [1] [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
- powersnail 6y agoFrom your link: > Can literally mean figuratively? > One of the definitions of literally that we provide is "in effect, virtually—used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible." Some find this objectionable on the grounds that it is not the primary meaning of the word, "with the meaning of each individual word given exactly." However, this extended definition of literally is commonly used and is not quite the same meaning as figuratively ("with a meaning that is metaphorical rather than literal"). That seem to confirm my impression that "literally" is used to indicate exaggeration, rather than being figurative. Edit: formatting the quote
- xKingfisher 6y agoYou are correct. Literally is commonly used as an intensifier and has been for ages. Complaining that modern people are literally ruining the word literally is a popular internet gripe.
- dkjaudyeqooe 6y agoSimple: "Literally" is being used figuratively.
- xKingfisher 6y agoThe 'misuse' of literally has been part of the English language for almost 300 years at this point [1]. It is older than the USA. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misuse-of-literally https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misuse-of-lite...
- monadic3 6y agoAll uses of "server" are bastardizations of the concept of a human who provides service.
- jiofih 6y agoThat’s kinda unrelated. The title here could have been “SQLite in serverless apps” or something to avoid the confusion.
- sbergot 6y agoI think I will always struggle to understand the popularity of the term serverless. From the two definitions found in https://www.sqlite.org/serverless.html https://www.sqlite.org/serverless.html classic serverless --> "embedded database" exists and is often used neo-serverless --> I suspect that this is a marketing term used to attract cool people to new cloud offerings (like "jamstack" for services such as netlify). There is no good replacement here because the term was tied to this new kind of infrastructure really early. But anytime I hear someone repeat "of course serverless does not mean there is no server!" I die a little more. Naming things is hard but at least we ought to try to come up with terms that are not blatantly misleading.
- ohnemint 6y agoI wouldn't be surprised if the term originated as a marketing tactic (e.g., AWS) to seed in people's heads the idea of not having to care about servers
- deepstack 6y agoYou hit the nail on the head. It is all about marketing for the new front-end developers who don't want to learn "server side" manipulation db, files, etc. Personally the whole indexdb, localstorage really break the web page as a stateless model. Why do you need save so much local data to just maintain the session? Stop putting everything in the web browser.
- ohnemint 6y agoI can see the value of serverless in general (not this hack necessarily) in small startups that don't have sysadmins on payroll but still want to rapidly deploy products with confidence that it will just work - all without worrying about infrastructure, scaling, etc. What I'm curious is if (1) serverless is cheaper than hiring competent sysadmins who can maintain the infrastructure instead and (2) are these savings worth being locked into a chaotic architecture and boring proprietary tooling that is forced on you for the profit of the Google, Microsoft, and Amazon monopolies? I've recently entered the job market and personally find no joy in working in serverless environments because of the latter.
- imtringued 6y agoServerless is an adjective so you can slap it everywhere. Worker-based or FaaS (function as a service) don't roll off the tongue that well. I'm not advocating for the term, just trying to explain why it is so popular.
- k__ 6y agoAlso, serverless solutions like DynamoDB or S3 aren't compute, so worker based and FaaS would simply be wrong.
- wongarsu 6y agoWould we lose any meaning by just calling DynamoDB and S3 managed solutions, like in the old times?
- mikesabbagh 6y agoThey probably call them serverless because you are mainly billed by the number of requests instead of the number of hours it runs for (although for Dynamo, there is a cost per table and r/w)
- zeckalpha 6y agoAnd https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_SQL_Database https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_SQL_Database which was truly serverless SQLite for a web browser.