|
|
|
|
|
|
by anewlanguage
1035 days ago
|
|
|
I really don't get the semantic arguments against serverless. The name perfectly describes what it is: an abstraction where the developer doesn't have to worry about a server. It's really that simple. If you have another model that you think is better, why don't you come up with a name for it, instead of trying to co-op a perfectly cromulent term that is already in wide usage? |
|
|
There is a difference between an abstraction that allows the user to ignore X, and the actual absence of X. Modern car engines, for example, are reliable enough that most drivers don't have to worry about them. But it's still a mistake to call a car with a reliable engine "engine-less".