this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2023
641 points (97.8% liked)

Programmer Humor

31812 readers
511 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 27 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Instead of spinning up a classical server like Apache or IIS for what you need, you just write a single function that you can bind to an endpoint and just host that - the rest is abstracted away from you.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Serverless sounds like a terrible name for this lmao.

Why not remote functions or something like that.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Marketing™️ I guess? :P

But probably because YOU don't have to fuck around with servers, for you it's just an upload of a function.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think that's the main reason, it's a good name explaining what you can expect: an environment where you don't have to worry about servers and don't need an administrator

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Why not just call it shared hosting though? It's essentially the same concept as getting a GoDaddy (or Bluegost or whatever) hosting account and uploading a PHP file lol

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago

Shared hosting sounds like you don't have your data stored privately and doesn't sound like less work for the company.

Don't look at the name from a technicians perspective, but from the perspective of a manager of a small startup who wants to reduce the overhead for hosting it's service as much as possible. Also serverless is not wrong per sé, it's exactly what you as the customer get.

You could spin it the same way for every other instance. Why do you call GoDaddy "shared hosting", in the end it's just a pod on a kubernetes cluster. So why don't you call it "private kubernetes pod"?