equivalent / equivalent/we_demand_serverless_ruby

I think the wording of the petition is holding this back

Offen
#5 7 Kommentare 2 Reaktionen 0 zugewiesene Personen Auf GitHub ansehen
Vorherrschende Sprache
Ruby
Sterne
4
Forks
4
PR-Merge-Kennzahlen
Keine gemergten PRs in 30 T.

Beschreibung

### https://www.serverless-ruby.org/

> "We **demand** FaaS for Ruby !"

As someone who has programmed in Ruby for over a decade, still deploys Ruby applications, and currently also deploys serverless applications (in Node.js), I'm hesitant to sign this petition, because it sounds whiny.

Why do we have to make "demands?" Is this a political statement? Are we suggesting that those that sign it cannot deploy a serverless function in any other language? For example, a perfect counter argument to this petition might be, _"If those behind the petition are willing to sound so self-righteous, then maybe they should build a FaaS competitor themselves (good luck with that)."_

Don't get me wrong: **I would love to see Ruby support in the FaaS world**, but I don't think this is the way to go about it.

Here are some suggestions for a new headline (keep it more positive):

---

### Rubyists are Ready for Serverless
### Grow the FaaS Community with Ruby
### AWS Lambda: Grow the Serverless Community with Ruby
(here, have the "AWS Lambda" prefix automatically cycle between the other FaaS providers)

---

**Other suggestions?**

Am I alone in feeling hesitant to sign the petition as it is currently written?

Beitragsleitfaden

Für dieses Repository ist kein Beitragsleitfaden indexiert

Bewertung

Dieses Issue wurde noch nicht bewertet.

Neue Issues direkt in Ihr Postfach

Eine kurze Übersicht über anfängerfreundliche GitHub-Issues.