Serverless has it's place. If you have lots of events and they don't fire all the time it's great. Or, for small additive things on a mostly static site (like one hosted out of s3). Or for some other specific cases.
Serverless may change the landscape of development but it's going to take time. The costs need to settle into place while tools and processes need to come together.
Right now it appears it takes longer to build something with serverless, is more difficult to manage for day-2 deployments, and it costs more to operate for things like API servers.
I look forward to serverless doing a lot more in a cost effective manner. It's just going to take time to get there if it ever does.
Serverless may work well for sites that don't have a lot going on or don't have a lot of traffic. In our case, Serverless could not handle the number of requests we were receiving nor could it handle the small compute job we handed it (zipping image files and pushing them to S3) at any kind of scale.
Even if Serverless performs well for certain sites, I think it is too much of a pain in the ass to set up for local development and deployment. There are better technologies out there that provide easier development setups and easier deployments that can also handle greater loads and compute needs. After using Serverless for the past year, I'm having a really hard time finding where it might make sense. It certainly doesn't belong in our tech stack and I would never reach for it again personally.
Serverless may change the landscape of development but it's going to take time. The costs need to settle into place while tools and processes need to come together.
Right now it appears it takes longer to build something with serverless, is more difficult to manage for day-2 deployments, and it costs more to operate for things like API servers.
I look forward to serverless doing a lot more in a cost effective manner. It's just going to take time to get there if it ever does.