[akshayshah]

That's true of CORBA, for sure. I'm not familiar with ONC-RPC or Java RMI.

It's not true of gRPC. It's not "RPC" in any traditional sense - it's just a particular HTTP convention, and the clients reflect that. They're asynchronous, make deadlines and transport errors first-class concepts, and make it easy to work with HTTP headers (and trailers, as the article explains). Calling a gRPC API with a generated client often doesn't feel too different from using a client library for a REST API.

It's definitely a verb-oriented style, as opposed to REST's noun orientation. That's sometimes a plus, and sometimes a minus; it's the same "Kingdom of Nouns" debate [0] that's been going on about Java-style OOP for years.

0: http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom...

[rswail]

The verb-oriented style is part of the problem. Too many verbs is the problem. Java/OOP problems are not the same as the REST style, which is entirely about Nouns. There's none of the Java ManagerFactoryManager problems.

The generated client from an IDL that wraps the network protocol with a function call is also part of the problem.

REST APIs that have function calls that aren't "Send Request and wait for Response" aren't REST. ("wait for response" doesn't imply synchronous implementation, but HTTP is a request/response oriented protocol).

[__alexs]

gRPC has no opinion on what you name things.