[gaius]

I don't understand the knee-jerk opposition people have to serverless architectures

It’s the name. It infuriates people because obviously there still really are servers. But I think of it like WiFi - there still are wires, you just don’t see them.

[mmt]

I've read this analogy before, but it's weak enough to be inapplicable.

With wireless networking and even phones, the wires have actually been eliminated, replaced wholesale by something else, radio. A better analogy would be something like the powerline ethernet systems, but nobody is calling them something controversial like "wireless" or "cableless".

Put another way, I've seen cloud computing (of which "serverless" is, arguably, merely an evolution into increasing levels of abstraction) called "somebody else's servers". The equivalent with the Wifi analogy would be "somebody else's wires", and, usually, what wires there are, for the backhaul [1], aren't even somebody else's.

EDIT:

Ultimately, my point is this:

The analogy is weak becasue WiFi is not an abstraction layer on top of wired networking that merely hides the existence of (and, ideally, some of the downsides of dealing with) the wires, instead being a different technology with different upsides and downsides. Serverless is such an abstraction layer.

[1] Which brings up a nitpick: Wifi can remain even wireless in its entirety, with various mesh networking techniques.

[laumars]

Except there literally isn't any wires in WiFi. Unless you're talking about power cables on access points or other unrelated tech used on devices that have ethernet / whatever AS WELL AS WiFi?

[pvg]

All-caps italics is an interesting choice. Is that both emphasized AND shouted?

[laumars]

Haha yeah on reflection it does look a bit silly. I was intending for it just to stand out against the camelcase of "WiFi" but the caps was a poor choice in hindsight.