| > I am sure people have said this but it's "serverless" from the perspective of the user (who is a developer in this case). It's specifically not server-less. The developer is writing code that will be run on a server. They just don't control that server. That is literally no different than people who push regular Ruby/Python/PHP/NodeJS/Perl/etc apps to platforms platforms like Heroku, or like developers pushing CGI/PHP scripts to regular shared-hosting providers via FTP back in the day. In all cases, the developer has very limited, if any control over the server, and just uploads their code to run. > I guess it's like wireless... Something could be wireless from the perspective of the end user but there are still wires actually there. No, it fucking isn't. "Wireless" describes a specific type of connectivity - either WiFi/Bluetooth style short-range local networking, or Cellular/WiMax style long-range "last mile" networking. For the specific connectivity that is described as "Wireless" THERE ARE NO FUCKING WIRES. It is very possible to operate a 100% wireless network - e.g. bluetooth device networking, or wifi LAN networking. You will only be able to connect to other devices on the same network, but internet access isn't what's being claimed, and it will be completely wireless. In the single specific definition of the "serverless" architecture, there is very much a server (and more than likely several), and without that server, you have nothing. > I honestly think that serverless is a lot less ambiguous and misleading than something like "cloud" which is completely abstract. With terms like Cloud, the term has actual technical background. Network diagrams often include a "cloud" component, which literally signifies something you don't control, usually a WAN/internet connection. See for example, this diagram with reference to a local IPX network (the page it's from isn't in English but references 1996): http://soback.kornet.net/~silicon/network/Tunneling.files/im... Yes, the term has been expanded upon but there is still a basis of the same concept in its use: something you just use, you don't manage/control. "Serverless" is a technically incorrect and very misleading term. The term would be better applied to something like HTML/JS Single-Page Apps that use things like offline storage/etc to allow truly offline browser based apps. |
It is different. On Heroku, you have to think (a little) about server configuration, and (especially) about how many servers you need.
In the 'cloud', they're someone else's servers, but they're at least somewhat visible to you. In 'serverless', you don't see them and don't have to worry about them (one hopes).