equivalent / equivalent/we_demand_serverless_ruby

I think the wording of the petition is holding this back

Abierto
#5 7 comentarios 2 reacciones 0 asignados Ver en GitHub
Lenguaje dominante
Ruby
Estrellas
4
Forks
4
Métricas de merge de PR
Sin PR fusionados en 30 d

Descripción

### 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?

Guía de contribución

No hay ninguna guía de contribución indexada para este repositorio

Evaluación

Este issue todavía no se ha evaluado.

Recibe los nuevos issues en tu correo

Un resumen breve de issues de GitHub para principiantes.