1. 8
  1.  

  2. 9

    Just because someone else is running them doesn’t mean it’s “without servers.”

    1. 8

      Yes, obviously. It is meant more in the sense of “without EC2 instances” or something similar, but I think it would have ended up to be too confusing for a title, there is already too much AWS jargon in it.

      On a side note, if the reason on why I posted this was not clear: I didn’t posted this for the chat application per se (it is not quite usable in a real world scenario), but because I thought it was a nice example on how Amazon Web Services can work together in clever ways. This was also the purpose of the project, to “create a multi-user, dynamic web application without using EC2 or resorting to hacks”.

      1. 1

        alternative title: How to Use Amazon Web Services together in clever ways alternative title: Create multi-user dynamic web application in AWS without EC2

        Current title is not very strong, is there no way to add a link description?

    2. 2

      As much as I enjoy hating AWS, and although they’ve done their normal best to screw lambda up, I have to admit that function-application-as-a-service is a pretty freaking sweet concept. Even the janky stockholm-syndrome flop-sweat half-tools don’t sink it yet.

      1. 1

        ‘Only’