> we'd need to come up with another name to properly distinguish which "REST" we're talking about "Underspecified, broken half-implementation of RPC" is quite

> we'd need to come up with another name to properly distinguish which "REST" we're talking about "Underspecified, broken half-implementation of RPC" is quite precise, but most of the programmers don't like being reminded that they implement a brain-dead idea. I never understood why people don't use one of the already-defined RPC protocols, rolling instead their own versions (each different) that don't even signal errors properly.