Serverless always seemed to me like a stupid name. Of course there's a server. It's just not your server.
But we obviously haven’t.
Which, despite not sharing your opinion, probably indicates the name was poorly chosen. Since it still has be defended.
Or perhaps it has just turned into one of those gnome v kde / vim v emacs things?
I was always vaguely irritated by the term and never understood what it meant bc I was like „there must be some server??“
(not working in web dev)
I think there are probably reasonable use cases for this, like automation that's going to run infrequently, but it seems like a terrible way to implement a typical application that's going to receive frequent requests.
Or no check at all since it scales to zero and the free tier is ridiculously high for infrequent / low usage.
PoC works, costs nothing, code delivered much faster. CTO impressed.
PoC tidied up and rolled out to production. CTO very not impressed when quarterly expenses are reviewed, but customers are relying on this now.
Exactly our usecase. Then the network admins wanted to click button and select their template from lists rather than having to write json, so website it was, and now we run a MVC on lambda.
It isn't used that much (at most, you'll get 20 simulaneous users, and its always during a short time period, most of the time nobody use it). Don't know if it's the best choice. Honestly it seems fine.