4 ms·
Why would speaking a human language without nuance, without any possibility of misinterpretation, be a step forward? It's spelled ReST. Does that better conve
by dvanduzer 11y ago
Why would speaking a human language without nuance, without any possibility of misinterpretation, be a step forward?
It's spelled ReST.
Does that better convey what it means in that string of characters? Maybe for some values of human. But words are for humans, and humans are not immutable, so our words shouldn't be.
- antod 11y ago> It's spelled ReST. Really? It's been capitalized REST everywhere I've seen it. Including here: http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/rest_arch_style.htm http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/rest_arch... You weren't thinking of 'reST' (reStructuredText) were you?
- dvanduzer 11y agoNo, I was thinking of Representational State Transfer, which is what Fielding's paper talks about. And I was also thinking about how people say RESTful, and how that's a confusing way to say "conforms to how Roy Fielding thinks an API should behave." What I was responding to was advocacy that human language should behave the way we expect RFCs to work.