[andrewflnr]

Part of the debate is what problems REST is suited to solve. While most evangelists will never come out and say, "you should use X for everything," they will try to fit it into whatever situation it will "reasonably" fit into, which is probably a bigger domain than the problems it's "best" for.

[bct]

The thesis lays out in detail what REST provides:

"REST provides a set of architectural constraints that, when applied as a whole, emphasizes scalability of component interactions, generality of interfaces, independent deployment of components, and intermediary components to reduce interaction latency, enforce security, and encapsulate legacy systems."

The existence of these properties should be fairly evident when you examine the constraints.

I think large part of the confusion comes from not recognizing the difference between "Any system can be built in a RESTful style" (this is true) and "Every system should be built in a RESTful style" (this is a straw man).

[ProblemFactory]

That tagline may explain the benefits of REST, but it doesn't really explain at all which problems REST is well-suited for and which not.

I've found that REST design is great for problems where the most visible abstraction is a document or an object (with operations or functions as secondary). It doesn't really fit problems where the most common abstraction is a function call (with the arguments a secondary concern).

[bct]

We're talking about two totally different kinds of problems.

You're talking about wire formats and structures that feel natural to use for particular kinds of calculations. I'm talking about recognizing properties that we might need a particular system to have (ease of use being only one of them), and ensuring them.

The line I quoted tells us exactly which problems (in the sense that I'm talking about) REST is suited for: the ones where those benefits are needed (and where the tradeoffs aren't to costly).