4 ms·
It would have been nice if he proposed something innovative moving forward, but this is a step back to RPC-structured APIs. After reading this though, I had to
by omgitstom 12y ago
It would have been nice if he proposed something innovative moving forward, but this is a step back to RPC-structured APIs. After reading this though, I had to check to make sure it wasn't April 1st.
- latj 12y agoGaining experience in technology is absolutely exhausting. Everyday there are posts, "New Shiny X!" and then six months later "Introducing No-X". Then a year later "New Shiny Y! Like X but without sesame seeds on the buns!"
- omgitstom 12y agoThis is one of my biggest problems with the software industry. It isn't just the posts, but the tooling / utilities / frameworks / languages as well. If you are smart enough to improve something, there is no fame in contributing to the open source project, some people would rather just re-write their own and attempt to force it down everyones throat.
- Sophistifunk 12y agoIt's pretty much required, if you want to change what the existing project thinks is "the right way to do something"
- Nacraile 12y agoI think the whole point the article is trying to make is that REST isn't really a step forward from RPC. It just adds an overly restrictive taxonomy (i.e. in a complex practical application, you're probably going to run into a problem that doesn't fit the REST model well), and doesn't actually solve any real problems.
- dragonwriter 12y agoThat may be the point of the article, but neither it nor any of the other instance of people making similar claims I've seen supports it convincingly.
- lmorchard 12y agoREST doesn't add "restrictions". REST describes constraints that - if you can work within them - provide certain guarantees and benefits and capabilities. It solves a bunch of real problems. REST wasn't just pulled out of thin air - it was an attempt to describe how the web itself works at global scale.