I was going to reply to another comment, but then my response became much more general. So this is more of a general response to those comments that disagree wi

I was going to reply to another comment, but then my response became much more general. So this is more of a general response to those comments that disagree with the original article. In the case of web APIs, there is always a determination made as to where the limit of the host's responsibility lies. If the API exposes more functionality, it costs more to implement and maintain, and the responsibility is on the host, not on the client. If an API is shrunk, then the host shifts the responsibility to the client. In many other fields, changes in an API spec might be called a turf war, not separation of concerns. A personal anecdote: I currently (not for long though) support and extend a large enterprise application that is licensed by my organization, but is hosted at the licensor's data center. For the last decade or so, this application has been extended with in-process plug-ins/modules that use internally exposed Java APIs and have an internally exposed JSP tag library for UI extension. The complexity of the plug-in system, and the incredibly varied effects it has on customer deployments, has become untenable for the licensor (apparently). So as this enterprise software provider transitions their products to a multi-tenant microservices model (as opposed to the current silo'd monolith we have now), the Java APIs will be gradually phased out, in favor of REST services. Of course, this means that clients will be responsible for maintaining their own server for each extension service (as opposed to the "free" in process hosting previously provided) and will also be responsible for their own UI (including accessibility and mobile concerns), even though it can be iframed in the new UI. Long story short, this has a lot of the extension developers...upset. Basically they've had an entire integration and extension platform that is now being mostly (if slowly) closed off to them to shift several responsibilities across the border between the licensor and licensee. There are (very good) technical justifications for changing the framework this way, but they sit alongside the political and economic justifications.