[wongarsu]

Whenever I've spoken with engineers from AWS and Google Cloud they saw serverless as a platform for glue code, webhooks, cronjobs and the like. In that role it works great: you don't care if it takes 300ms to start and it's genuinely easier and cheaper than running that code on a server.

But somehow in marketing materials and blog posts it's instead discussed as if it was a good idea to run everything serverless. Maybe that works great for some edge cases (e.g. reaching PCI compliance), but in general that's not what it's for.

[dradtke]

Wasn't it originally called Function as a Service? That seems to be a better name for its intended use-case than serverless.

[erikerikson]

FaaS is one example of a serverless service. Workflow or object storage services are others. It was the arrival of FaaS that stimulated the term.

[skywhopper]

Marketing latches onto that because 1) executives understand front-end use cases better than glue cases; and 2) it's way more profitable.