3 ms·
I like this article except for the part about Lambda. The author doesn't seem to get that for some use cases there are serious benefits to having bits of code t
by snovymgodym 2y ago
I like this article except for the part about Lambda. The author doesn't seem to get that for some use cases there are serious benefits to having bits of code that run only when you need it, and only getting billed for those runs instead of getting billed for a VM or container runtime that's always present.
Obviously if your application involves processing a predictable high volume of requests, then you're probably better off running it on your own server/container, but depending on your use case there are times where Functions-as-a-service are the prefect solution.
The part about "why use lambda when cgi-bin exists" reminds me of the HN comment on the DropBox announcement from 2007 where the guy says something like "this is cool but why would anyone use it when you can just whip together ftp and svn on a debian box and have the same thing?"
- decasia 2y agoI think it kind of goes both ways. There are times when you absolutely want lambda functions instead of cgi-bin scripts. But conversely - there are times when you absolutely want cgi-bin instead of lambda. (For interfacing with other linux services or packages, for example). The two tools don't always substitute for each other.
- pixl97 2y agoI mean, that is the difference between using something because it's the flavor of the day and using something because it's the best tool for the job.
- Stratoscope 2y agoHere's the full quote: > For a Linux user, you can already build such a system yourself quite trivially by getting an FTP account, mounting it locally with curlftpfs, and then using SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem. From Windows or Mac, this FTP account could be accessed through built-in software. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863
- ikari_pl 2y agoi just remembered how FTP server was built-in in Windows, easy to set up, and IPs were public, so yeah, it was easy to share a local folder directly (but you had to know what you're doing anyway, and same for the other person). good times.
- jimbokun 2y agoWhich is 100% true. And it's also true Dropbox was a great product because it provided this functionality for the vast majority of the population who don't have the time or interest to learn all those tools.
- rty32 2y agoYou missed the point. It's usability rather than functionality. I can 100% do all of this but there is no chance I would choose this over OneDrive/Dropbox etc. Although there are new functionalities from Dropbox -- (easy) online access, apps, preview, on-demand access, (presumably) redundancy on the server etc