>serverless systems don't cost you money when you(r customers) don't use them
All the horror stories I see surrounding huge surprise Lambda bills always bring me back to this point. If I have to pay $5/mo for a server I only use for two hours once every few months, that's something that should go on Lambda. If it's something that I'm using constantly, all day every day, a server will be cheaper.
If I only use my car once every few weeks, Uber makes a lot of sense. If I use it every day back and forth to work and the grocery store, Uber's gonna be a lot more expensive.
Lambda is for small tasks that don't execute often. And using it right can save startups gobsmackingly large amounts of money.
Maybe using serverless technology is too hard for your corp, because you don't have the skills, so it could lead to problems in the future (surprise Lambda bills).
But it could also be that your competitors get a huge advantage by investing in the serverless paradigm and run you away in the future.
To me that Twitter thread sounded too much like a guy who invested in some tech over the last 11 years and now tries to convince potential customers of him to use the tech he knows about.
He could be right, he could be wrong. I don't know. I started back-end development with serverless, so I'm biased in the other direction, haha.
All the horror stories I see surrounding huge surprise Lambda bills always bring me back to this point. If I have to pay $5/mo for a server I only use for two hours once every few months, that's something that should go on Lambda. If it's something that I'm using constantly, all day every day, a server will be cheaper.
If I only use my car once every few weeks, Uber makes a lot of sense. If I use it every day back and forth to work and the grocery store, Uber's gonna be a lot more expensive.
Lambda is for small tasks that don't execute often. And using it right can save startups gobsmackingly large amounts of money.