3 ms·
Most of the time I see "serverless" used these days, it's referring to the fact that server specifics are abstracted away from the application itself's deployme
by viccis 2y ago
Most of the time I see "serverless" used these days, it's referring to the fact that server specifics are abstracted away from the application itself's deployment artifacts. Instead it just runs on a platform of some kind without worrying about having to be built for this version of this OS, etc.
While it is being used a bit recklessly here, taking it literally is about as insightful and constructive to discussion as pointing out that "cloud" servers are located on the ground.
I would even defend its usage here by pointing out that it's entirely possible to use this at a company in which the servers are managed by one person or team, and the developers building applications simply interact with the service and never touch a server themselves. Neither team has to touch each others scope, making it indistinguishable from conventional "serverless" approaches in which the decoupling occurs across company rather than across team within one company.
- amelius 2y ago> without worrying about having to be built for this version of this OS, etc. Maybe call it "server-agnostic" or "OS-agnostic" then.
- viccis 2y agoI honestly don't see the need to change it. The first use of "serverless" is from this article: https://readwrite.com/why-the-future-of-software-and-apps-is-serverless/ https://readwrite.com/why-the-future-of-software-and-apps-is... In it, he points out: >The phrase “serverless” doesn’t mean servers are no longer involved. It simply means that developers no longer have to think that much about them. I don't know how anyone could interpret "serverless" as meaning there's no server involved at any point in the application's execution, and if they did, I'm not sure what harm it causes? It seems like the only objection here is a pedantic urge to be more correct.
- lpfeifer 2y ago[flagged]