[eddythompson80]

I don't disagree with the overall point you're trying to make. However, I'm very familiar with the type of project that is (seeing as I have implemented a similar one at work 5 years ago) so I can answer some of your questions regarding "How does one arrive at such architecture".

> Why do you think you need containers to run a handler?

You don't, but plenty of people don't care and ask for this shit. This is probably another way of saying "buzzword-driven" as people ask for "buzzwords". I've heard plenty of people say things like

       We're looking for a container native platform
       We're not using containers yet though.
       We were hoping we can start now, and slowly containerize as we go

or

       I want the option to use containers, but there is no business value in containers for me today. So I would rather have my team focus on the code now, and do containers later

These are actual real positions by actual real CTOs commanding millions of dollars in potential contracts if you just say "ummm, sure.. I guess I'll write a Dockerfile template for you??"

> Why do you think you need a full blown cluster orchestrating containers just to run a function?

To scale. You need to solve the multi-machine story. Your system can't be a single node system. So how do you solve that? You either roll up your sleeves and go learn how Kafka or Postgres does it for their clusters or you let Kubernetes most of that hardwork and deploy your "handlers" on it.

> Does that make sense to you?

Well... I don't know. These types of systems (of which I have built 2) are extremely wasteful and bullshit by design. A design that there will never be a shortage of demand for.

It's a really strange pattern too. It has so many gotchas on cost, waste, efficiency, performance, code organization, etc. You always look and whoever built these things either has a very limited system in functionality, or they have slowly reimplemented what a "Dockerfile" is, but "simpler" you know. it's "simple" because they know the ins and outs of it.

[stavros]

> To scale. You need to solve the multi-machine story. Your system can't be a single node system.

Why can't it be? How many customers do you have that you can't deploy a bunch of identical workers over a beefy database?

Companies spend so much time on this premature optimization, that they forget to actually write some features.

[motorest]

> You don't, but plenty of people don't care and ask for this shit. This is probably another way of saying "buzzword-driven" as people ask for "buzzwords".

That's a fundamental problem with the approach OP is trying to sell. It's not solving any problem. It tries to sell a concept that is disconnected from technologies and real-world practices, requires layers of tech that solve no problem nor have any purpose, and doesn't even simplify anything at all.

I recommend OP puts aside 5 minutes to go through Cloudflare's docs on Cloudflare Workers that they released around a decade ago, and get up to speed on what it actually takes to put together stateless functions and durable objects. Dragging Kubernetes to the problem makes absolutely no sense.

[kentonv]

Where did Nathan say he's using Kubernetes? I think I missed something. His comment describes a new alternative to Kubernetes. He's presenting stateless functions and stateful actors as supplementing containers. He knows all about Cloudflare Workers -- Rivet is explicitly marketed as an alternative to it.

It feels like you didn't really read his comment yet are responding with an awful lot of hostility.