3 ms·
REST has "failed" in the same way that many original visions of the web/APIs/protocols have "failed" - you have a few "no-true-Scotsman" purists complaining abo
by dandelany 10y ago
REST has "failed" in the same way that many original visions of the web/APIs/protocols have "failed" - you have a few "no-true-Scotsman" purists complaining about differences in implementation; meanwhile a great many real-world developers are quite happy and productive in a REST-like paradigm and don't particularly care that their API doesn't fit some Platonic ideal.
Could things be better? No doubt. But REST (or something like it) is largely "the way things are built" these days and most people don't mind. Calling it a failure is quite a stretch IMO.
- rantanplan 10y agoYour comparisons are not that relevant. Also comparing it to a "protocol" is the overstatement of the decade. How many browsers do you have? 3-5? How many REST client libraries are there? Answer: one per service(per programming language). What kind of protocol is that?
- dandelany 10y agoI'm not claiming that REST is a protocol. I'm saying that the de facto state of the REST paradigm today is analogous to some protocols which have been twisted to support use-cases far beyond what their designers intended, in ways that make purists squeamish, but make developers happy that their shit works.
- rantanplan 10y ago> use-cases far beyond what their designers intended OK, I get what you're saying. Problem is that as far as I can see REST is perfect for S3-like services, Maps(?) and slightly more than basic CRUD applications. You are bound to discover its limits very soon. The gazillions of books and blogposts out there heralding it as a serious interface are not helping either. BTW, I don't know about other people criticizing, I am definitely not a purist. But after ~10 years of dealing with REST in various capacities(startups to Enterprises), I am a bit tired and can't wait for something to replace it.