News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Why Netflix Rolled Its Own Node.js Functions-As-a-Service Runtime. Parent comment

Re:Why Netflix Rolled Its Own Node.js Functions-As-a-Service... by stephenr on Monday October 29, 2018 @12:18AM (#18325022)
Non technical people?

If you want to dismiss the literal issue, that means the name is meaningless. It might as well be called Daffy Duck.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Netflix Rolled Its Own Node.js Functions-As-a-Service... by _II__II_ on Monday October 29, 2018 @01:01AM (#18325184)
I agree with you, but if the point is to help non technical people I'm not sure Functions as a Service is any better.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Netflix Rolled Its Own Node.js Functions-As-a-Service... by stephenr on Monday October 29, 2018 @10:44AM (#18327910)
"X as a Service" is a common enough term that someone is more likely to have heard it before, and it accurately describes what it is (if the X is accurate).

"Serverless" is deliberately wrong and misleading.

One of those stupid "entire website in a page" would be a better fit for "server less" because technically the logic is all client side.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Netflix Rolled Its Own Node.js Functions-As-a-Service... by icebraining on Monday October 29, 2018 @03:59AM (#18325722)
At least it's clear that it depends on a service, with all that entails.
[ Parent | on HN ]