Hacker News Reader

Having felt the pain of maintaining my own instances, deploying, updating, dockering, when all I wanted was to have a function deployed out there somewhere I was stoked when serverless functions were announced at AWS Re:Invent. I never felt it was a stupid name because I was done with the servers and all their annoyances. FaaS (functions as a Service) could be interpreted as a dumb name with the same logic we’ve been executing functions the whole time!

Considering the alternative would be running your own server, what would you suggest “serverless” be called instead?

People have been running on “someone else’s server” for decades. So, no, that’s not the alternative.

All code must run on a processor somewhere, and if it's not your server it is someone else's server. I also have issues with the term serverless.

However, the term is generally accepted for cloud services where you run code on someone else's server. It is a product you can use.

I would be greatly disappointed if there are developers who think serverless code runs on air.

I think it makes sense when it's simply describing that you don't manage the server.