[voidr]

> But 'serverless' does accurately describe services like AWS Lambda,

Serverless means no server, which is false, because there is a server that runs your code.

> because the experience of development is such that you don't really have to think about servers, along with all the complexity of provisioning, configuring and managing them.

That sounds like you are talking about 'web hosting' or 'application hosting', which existed decades ago, don't see any point in inventing a confusing buzzword when we have perfectly fine terminologies already.

> TL;DR: It's just a name. Get over it.

It's a useless and confusing marketing buzzword that makes having intelligent conversations harder. I would love to understand your rationale for defending this confusing buzzword.

[Herald_MJ]

> It's a useless and confusing marketing buzzword

A marketing buzzword is something like "web scale", which might be used by a non-technical person to describe a technology, but has no real technical meaning. Serverless is not a buzzword because it is the name used for a collection of technologies, even if it isn't a specific product. "Software containers" also falls into this category.

Yes, serverless architectures involve servers. Well done for recognising this, you are very smart. In fact, you are smart enough to realise that the architectures we are talking about here are very distinct from traditional web hosting services. So, it's convenient to use a different name for them.

Finally, it doesn't really matter whether you like the term or not. It is the accepted term and it is here to stay. If you want to engage in conversations on the topic you will need to move past your misgivings.

[voidr]

> A marketing buzzword is something like "web scale", which might be used by a non-technical person to describe a technology, but has no real technical meaning. Serverless is not a buzzword because it is the name used for a collection of technologies, even if it isn't a specific product.

What collection of technologies does it name? And how is that different from "web scale" technologies that is also a group of technologies?

> Yes, serverless architectures involve servers. Well done for recognising this, you are very smart.

If you would have strong arguments, you wouldn't need snarkiness.

> In fact, you are smart enough to realise that the architectures we are talking about here are very distinct from traditional web hosting services.

That's the exact opposite of what I've said, if you look at it from a server management point of view, traditional web hosting and "serverless" are one and the same, both are used to run the code you upload and both are managed by someone else.

> So, it's convenient to use a different name for them.

It's not convenient, it's confusing.

> Finally, it doesn't really matter whether you like the term or not. It is the accepted term and it is here to stay.

Accepted by who?

> If you want to engage in conversations on the topic you will need to move past your misgivings.

If you want to engage in conversations on any topic with anyone, you should read what's on this website https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ and stop doing them.

[dvfjsdhgfv]

Ad hominem comments are really unnecessary. Your statement "Serverless is not a buzzword because it is the name used for a collection of technologies" is not logically true. There are many buzzwords referring to collections of technologies, and "serveless" is just one of them.