Also generally the conception that building things with containers + k8s actually takes more time than serverless is a horseshit take IMO. It doesn't and if it's taking you longer you are probably doing something wrong.
All the points noted in the slides etc just come from poor engineering leadership. i.e decisions/choices, etc. Constaints do speed up development but they can be enforced by leadership, not by putting yourself in an endless pit of technical debt.
The only world where I can make a good case for serverless for small teams is if you have said poor leadership and serverless helps you escape their poor decision making.
Otherwise assuming you have the mandate necessary to get stuff built the right way just stick with the Boring Tech stack of JVM + PG + k8s. It solves all problems regardless of size, there are minimal decisions to be made (really just Spring or Quarkus atm) and you won't spend time dicking around with half-baked serverless integration crap. Instead you can just use battle tested high performance libraries for literally everything.
Don't get sucked into this serverless nonsense. It's always been bad and it probably always will be. When it's out of fashion Boring Tech will still be here.
I recently started building a service and need to keep costs down. Serverless is perfect for it. My service has low to moderate traffic, costs pennies to run on AWS Lambda and MongoDB Atlas. If I had gone the boring route of JVM + PG + k8s, putting aside the time it would take to defamiliarize myself with anything on the JVM, the cost to run this service would have been in the hundreds of dollars a month vs the pennies. Interestingly the most expensive part of my current setup is the NAT Router on my VPC. With JVM + PG + k8s it would have been PG or K8S depending on where I ran PG.
I do agree that there is a misconception with containers taking longer than server less. I don't think either takes longer considering the current tooling available.
Seems like you got burned on Serverless at some point, I'm sorry that happened, but for many people and teams it is a productivity multiplier and can be a big cost cutting solution.
In a sentence like “One year on and what next for remote working?”, “what next” is a stable phrase and breaking it up is jarring. Either of the below reads better:
> One year on
> and what next
> for remote working?
or:
> One year on and what next
> for remote working?
(On the Web you can achieve those with non-breaking spaces, word joiners, and other similar HTML entities.)
— As a hard rule with rare exceptions, don’t break after conjunctions or short modifying words such as “and”, “the”, “on”, etc.—carry them to the next line.
— As a more vague rule of thumb, do not break after a word that is tightly coupled to the next one (this includes stable phrases and short idioms, adjective-noun combinations, and so on), unless intentionally for word play.
Just one of those small things that together make for clean and readable headlines and GUI copy.
Loading parent story...
Loading comment...
Rest Ice Compression Elevation may be wrong, but it is at least easy to understand, memorize, and explain. When my friend hurts their ankle, I want to pass on the latest, vetted wisdom. I don’t want to sound like a jackass saying, “O is for optimism. But we are not done yet. V is for vascularization. You don’t have much control over it, but we need to the round out the word LOVE. The third E is for …”
Loading parent story...
Loading comment...
Loading parent story...
Loading comment...
edit: forked one anyway