People need to stop calling that "server-less", that's stupid and the kind of buzzword that needs to die ASAP. There is a server, the fact that you don't have to manage it yourself doesn't change anything, you still need to upload your code to AWS lambda, how is it different from uploading a PHP script via FTP to a remote machine? it is not. PHP developers don't call their work "server-less". So people need to give up on using this expression now.
That's the most ridicule thing I have ever heard in my developer career. Who can anybody take a developer that says he is doing "server-less" web development seriously? frankly? What's next? the "database-less" movement?
On the contrary, I think the term is succinct and meaningful despite not being technically true. Of course Lambdas run on servers, but there is a very meaningful distinction between Lambdas and traditional servers (whether virtual or dedicated).
I agree server-less is not technically accurate. That's why I put it in quotes. However, in the spectrum of
bare metal server <-> VM server <-> Heroku-like PaaS
I'd put this architecture to the right of Heroku. I have less to worry about from an Ops perspective than I do running the app on Heroku. On Heroku, I would need to think about and managing one or several processes. With AWS Lambda, there is no concept of a processes exposed to me like Procfiles expose on Heroku. That's nice in many ways but also limiting in many ways.
Also, note that I wasn't building this for rock hard and huge scalability production. I was building it to learn and hopefully help others learn about a fairly new way to build a web application.
That's the most ridicule thing I have ever heard in my developer career. Who can anybody take a developer that says he is doing "server-less" web development seriously? frankly? What's next? the "database-less" movement?