If you think "serverless" is not confusing, then you have lost the vocabulary to even describe apps that run truly without servers: Photoshop, Word, tons of games, etc.

By your "wireless" analogy I think you view these apps to be absurd impossibilities, like electronics without wires.

This distinction is important. SimCity 5 gratuitously required the user to be constantly online, talking to some server. I mean obviously - there has to be a server somewhere, right?

No, there does not!! We need to retain the ability to talk about apps that do not need ANY server, and "serverless" muddies that crucial distinction.

> If you think "serverless" is not confusing, then you have lost the vocabulary to even describe apps that run truly without servers:

I generally just call them apps and people understand what I mean because of context. But if you want to get pedantic, Photoshop requires a computer (what a server is).

It's all useless and pointless.

Are you seriously incapable of talking about programs that don't require servers because the word serverless exists? Have you considered... offline? Local? I've never heard the word serverless ever used to describe a system that does not require servers.

No, but then why even have that term if it never describes something without servers?

"serverless" does not add any value. It causes confusion instead of creating clarity. It is utterly useless.

> I've never heard the word serverless ever used to describe a system that does not require servers.

It was used a few times even on HN:

https://hn.algolia.com/?query=serverless&sort=byPopularity&p...

Agreed. And even web apps can be truly serverless, like TiddlyWiki.

Wireless networking is wireless because communication between device and AP is wireless. Serverless has no point where there isn't a server involved. It's just a service that runs your program on a server you don't control. No definition of 'serverless' fits into that.