Comment by lostcolony | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lostcolony | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Well, as you posted this after another post that addressed this criticism rather elegantly, I will repeat the relevant bit - " We're OK with 'wireless' access to Internet, although it's pretty clear that the packets will hit a wire at some point. Wireless means I'm not pulling a cord along with my phone. "

Non-technical people may assume no server infrastructure. From the developer perspective -this is accurate-; the actual hardware is handled by someone else, there is no concept of it that the developer has to work around.

I'm not sure why you'd think someone would believe no software would be needed; even when servers are involved, there is software located elsewhere, on a mobile phone or a web browser or similar. No one is going to say "Oh, serverless? Then I don't need my software development team any more!"

The problem with serverless is that it's seems to mean distributed.

So why not chose a more fitting name?

Like? The point of it is there are no servers to manage. That's the sell, that's the differentiator. Hence the name. But by all means, if you have a better term for it I'd love to hear it.

Well thing is you ARE indirectly managing server resources. For example, you have to deal with "autoscaling" or else it can run out of control.

Why not say "fully-managed" or "serverside fully-managed"?

In serverless, everyone is a "client" and you run things client-side. Things like P2P file sharing in the browser is serverless. Things like AWS lambda obviously have a server.

> The point of it is there are no servers to manage

If I deploy a PHP script on a shared host there is no server to manage either. My PHP script doesn't listen communications on a socket connection. It doesn't make it "serverless". At some point the stuff you deploy, on a server no matter what you think it is, needs to communicate with the outside world through a server. It is not "serverless".

Stop re-posting this bullshit analogy.

There is no technology anywhere that is called "Wireless internet". There is wireless networking, which does exactly what the name implies, it transfers packets from point A to point B, without wires.

That it might be connected to wires at each end is irrelevant because that is a different technology.

"Serverless" is a misleading name - it inherently requires a server, as it's specifically a server-side technology (an event driven function runner).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com