Hacker News Reader

Comment by austincheney | Hacker News Reader

I don't really understand how this is serverless if you are still connecting to a remote terminal. There has to be some kind of service to receive the connection through a TCP port. To me the term serverless suggests execution on the local computer without transmission.

View on HN

The idea of "serverless" is that you don't have to manually provision and manage servers yourself. You just provide the code you want to run and the service handles the rest for you. From the developer's point of view, there's no "server" they need to deal with. (although there is actually a real server in there somewhere, of course)

When I think of serverless I think of an application that runs on the desktop, in the browser, or WASM. The generated data is stored in the same place the application is run. The only distribution is the initial delivery of the application. Not only is that confined to one side of a network no network is required.

I suppose the reason I have trouble accepting this use of serverless is in the case of a connection interruption. If the connection goes down the application is killed, which sounds like a service availability failure to me.

It's a buzzword. We don't store data in actual clouds either, it's just named after the standard icon the internet in network graphs. Same deal

It is not connected to a remote terminal in the normal way. It is just a design terminal, where your input is send to a lambda running NodeJS that runs your command using a childProcess.execSync(command).

So each command typed is a lambda invocation.

Serverless is a buzzword. It's not meant to be logical.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com