> Everyone in the industry knows in context what Serverless means.
I don't. Divorced from the context of a very specific vendor offering, serverless could mean almost anything. There are many applications, services, and platforms out there that don't require customers to manage their own servers.
Now if we're talking about Amazon or Google's specific things that have the marketing term 'serverless' applied... then many (but not everyone) can start getting specific (like in this posted article).
EDIT: I think another interesting question might be why so many people react defensively when this misnomer is criticized
"Prostitution is the oldest profession" is a common saying, but not to be taken literally.
Should be read more a sardonic acknowledgement of how innately transactional sex can be, and how the line between 'transactional sex' and 'not transactional sex' can be very, very blurry.
Especially in horrific pre-historical survival scenarios. Hence the saying.
Does make sense, but your description (and others) seems to match most vendors API out there today. It's not clear to me what 'serverless' means vs 'hosted / managed infrastructure', or even 'external API'.
It doesn't seem like a technical term at all.
Another commenter mentioned that it applies only to the price list, and that makes sense to me.
8 days of uncomfortably close quarters on ascent may be a good way to psychologically prepare folks for a perhaps slightly-less cramped orbital experience.
I'd appreciate it if others could chime in on this one.
I'm mystified by the word 'serverless'. Why are we using this word? There are clearly, _quite clearly_ servers involved. The wacky bugs involved in these 'server-less' services... are going to come down to what's happening on the servers involved.
EDIT: my question seems to have offended. Unfortunate, and unintentional!
I don't really understand your comment. 'Transactional sex' can be both a new concept, and a thing that happened before the phrase was coined.