|
|
|
|
|
by spriggan3
3589 days ago
|
|
> I guess it's like wireless... Something could be wireless from the perspective of the end user but there are still wires actually there. It's a bad analogy. As a developer you are supposed to know they are wires somewhere. That's why all this marketing is dangerous. the obfuscation which makes everything sound like "voodoo and black magic". > The developer doesn't have to deal with servers/infrastructure so for them the system is serverless. Yes he does, he has to configure and manage the whole thing on Amazon dashboard. Sure he doesn't have to spin upcontainers, but autoscaling doesn't make something "serverless". And again, you need API gateway to communicate with the outside world. So there is still a server fronting the whole thing. |
|
Combining FaaS, BaaS, and using certain techniques and patterns is what makes Serverless. As a developer I am plenty aware that there are servers - I don't feel that there is any voodoo or black magic. However, when someone says that they have a serverless system I immediately understand what they are trying to say. They are saying that they don't need to manage, provision, scale, and look after servers. Honestly, the world "serverless" is a lot less confusing than "cloud".
I am not sure what you mean by "there is still a server fronting the whole thing". You don't need to scale the API Gateway yourself (again it's a managed service). Same goes for Azure functions, Google Cloud Functions and OpenWhisk as they all have HTTP listeners built in.
I understand where your thinking is coming from. There was this article that tried to address it: https://serverless.zone/serverless-is-just-a-name-we-could-h...
Edit: fixed sentence structure.