[munns]

That is not at all what my words say and I won't reply to that thread which was started by a former competitor to troll this convo today.

The perceived lock-in is really no different than consuming other technologies. You make a trade-off on what you want to manage vs. handoff to a managed service. For many customers the benefits are well worth it.

It's fine that Lambda wasn't for you, but you aren't being clear here about what issues you saw, just waving the lock-in boogey man so many misunderstand.

[koluna]

Cost, lack of debugging capabilities, terrible developer tools, cryptic documentation that misses some key scenarios, I can go on. Now, I get it, you’re at AWS so you would never openly and bluntly come out and say that what you -really- want is to lock in your users, because that brings AWS money. But that’s the reality. See my earlier comment as to why it made sense for our company to move away from Lambda.

[orf]

What even is your point here and in this thread? Acquiring customers and giving them an incentive to stay is a cornerstone of any enterprise.

Saying lambda is bad because of lock-in is like saying their VPC offering is bad because of lock-in, or IAM is bad because of lock-in. It's not a generic component that you can flip between providers, they usually respond to a specific event from an AWS service and nobody really gives a rats about deploying their specific lambda to a cloud they don't use.

So yeah it seems like a real awesome idea to avoid vendor lock in for a small python function that responds to S3 change events from a SQS queue and updates a DynamoDB table with some values.

If you want "generic" lambdas go check out serverless.com.