Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by aikah 3529 days ago
> It'd be cool if you knew what you were talking about.

It'd be cool if people stop using bullshit buzzword in order to promote a project. There is a server period. It doesn't matter if "it does only a small thing". that bullshit needs to stop and I will call anybody engaged into bullshiting others out as long as they keep doing that.

The client talks directly to the other client but in order to connect 2 clients at first place you need a server to connect peers.

That's what you call serverless ? then that's a lie, period.

It's obviously you who don't have a clue what you are talking about.

"serverless" needs to die, no application that relies on the web is serverless, there is always a server.

2 comments

Dude. You're really focusing on the wrong thing here. No one is lying or attempting to deceive. At worst, the term is being used loosely - at worst. At best it's only referring to the portion of the work that happens during "multi player".

I get your frustration with software development jargon but this seems like an odd choice to attack.

And to two of your points, here's a version that is "serverless", and can run completely from the file system.

https://github.com/cjb/serverless-webrtc

But is it truly "serverless"? I mean the file system is serving the file up to the browser!

C'mon.

Oh, and in case you were going to point out that there's a server involved in the link I posted because, "the WebRTC offer/answer exchange is performed manually by the users, for example via IM", (emphasis mine) - the information could just as easily be written on a piece of paper and exchanged via carrier pigeon. The pigeon may still technically be a server, in an architectural sense I suppose, but hopefully at that point you'd agree we're taking the argument past the point of any sensibility.

I could probably get behind what you're saying when I read definitions of "serverless architecture" like this: http://martinfowler.com/articles/serverless.html. Or when it's thrown around talking about containerization (virtualization).

If that's the gripe though, I think it'd be barking up the wrong tree to apply to these types of WebRTC patterns and OP's project.