I disagree very much. I don't think any blanket statement like that makes sense.
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.
> the cost to run this service would have been in the hundreds of dollars a month vs the pennies
And maybe this again proves the initial comment's point.
> 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.
And (the misconception) that it costs more.
> AWS Lambda and MongoDB Atlas
If you take a managed database with a free tier and compare it there are similarly managed databases (SQL) based with a free tier. Not really fair to say PG will cost more.
This also comes down to the world is not just AWS. k8s is cheap in a lot of places and definitely not hundreds a month.
Off topic(?) but, "what next" in that sentence at all seems jarring. English is my first language so I could be wrong, but should it be "what's next" or "what is next"?
Those two choices sound like statements: 'here is what is next for remote working.' It's instead asking where remote working will go, and 'what next' is the expected form there from my experience, though it's usually seen on its own as an exclamation. Contrived example: "I've seen my boss, the Mayor, and the Governor walk through here! What next? The president?"
I don't know, that still feels wrong. The "What next?" in the contrived is "What [will I see] next?" The "what next" in the title is short for "what [is] next," which feels specifically made for "what's next."
Though, in general, just a too long title that doesn't flow well without hints for where the pauses and inflections should be.
> These languages are more alike than they are different.
I agree with this point. I learned python years before I learned Ruby and I found them to be very similar. Ultimately I dropped ruby because I didn't care much for the syntax and I like whitespace.
I don't think you'd sound like a jackass saying "O is for optimism. But we are not done yet. V is for vascularization...." but wouldn't you rather sound like a jackass than give bad advice? I'd rather hear this than the clinical robotic "Rest Ice Compression Elevation", I mean come on, I'm a person!
Good question. My guess is because those things are all 3D virtual worlds (to some extent) and/or a platform that is focused on social connection. Obviously they all need some connective tissue and evolution before they are a legit meta verse.
This is interesting. I've been relearning C++ after not using it for 25 years. It is hard, I was a Java dev for years, now Python with some Golang. Carbon looks much easier to take up.
There is an authoritative source of truth here, though, whether or not anyone chooses to listen to him—Roy Fielding defined REST, so his ideas on this matter are, I'd argue, definitionally correct (which is not automatically the same as most useful).
