I think it's that people assumed (as I did) that everyone would say, "Well, of course, there's not "no servers", because that would be like saying "computerless" or "processorless", but it is practical to say serverless and mean that you don't have to provision, administer, scale, or retire servers, nor do you have to pay for persistent compute resources rather than simply execution"

But that's a mouthful, so "serverless" seems to fit the bill outside of what feels a bit like pedantry.

> mean that you don't have to provision, administer, scale, or retire servers, nor do you have to pay for persistent compute resources rather than simply execution

Given all the work this appears to save one, there's a curious explosion of "serverless" articles, frameworks, APIs, 'practices', crash-courses, workshops, talks .. ah well, par for the course with anything tech that gains a catchy moniker.

(Perhaps that's why FP doesn't take off quite as much, "Monads" should have been called "Promises" 30 years ago, and Peano Numbers "numberless maths"!)

I think "nanoservices" would have been a better name.

nanoservices isn't specific enough. serverless has great meaning to initiated web developers. i for one know exactly what they mean by that and always did, whereas nanoservices, to me at least, could mean all sorts of things.

Think of it as serverless pricing model.