Good convo re: serverless. I think "framework as a service" (or smthg like it) fits better. XaaS tells you what you don't have to think abt.
I think ppl need to admit that millions of programmers haven't yet heard of "serverless" and it's confusing almost every time.
-
-
Isomorphic JS -> Universal JS happens. If you think the first person gets to make the name, another person can try to change it ;)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I'm open to admitting this, if I see evidence that it's true. In my experience, most people understand right away.
-
They understand "that servers exist somewhere" (duh!)? Or what the architecture actually means (hosted functions)?
-
What the architecture actually means. ("Serverless? What's that?" <two sentence explanation> "Oh, got it, makes sense.")
-
This is so far from my experience...
-
That's cool … I'll look forward to my experience being broadened on this. And I'll try FaaS on for size as well.
-
Let me know how it goes (sadly ambiguous with the poorly structured Function as a Service).
-
I think the nice thing about FaaS is that otherwise there are questions like "what about auth? data storage? etc"
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
That's exactly why I like "serverless": -less tells me what I don't have to think about!