[StavrosK]

Answer: This isn't even applicable. REST is still a good tool that applies to many jobs, use it where it makes sense, don't use it where it doesn't.

Better title: "Is using REST for everything a bad idea perhaps?" Turns out that yes, yes it is.

[masklinn]

> Better title: "Is using REST for everything a bad idea perhaps?" Turns out that yes, yes it is.

For the vast majority of these uses, "REST" is a worthless and meaningless buzzword, so that's not a better title as the rise and fall of "REST" has nothing to do with it.

[StavrosK]

First of all, REST is pretty well-defined and is neither worthless, meaningless or a buzzword. Second of all, the rise and fall of REST doesn't have anything to do with the article either.

The entire article can be summarized as "At first we wanted to design pure things, but then we realized we need optimizations as well. Is this the dead of purity in design?" It just makes no sense at all.

[masklinn]

> First of all, REST is pretty well-defined and is neither worthless, meaningless or a buzzword

Reading comprehension, you definitely don't have it. I didn't say REST wasn't well-defined or was worthless, I said most of the uses of the acronym are as a worthless and meaningless buzzword, having very little to do with REST itself. That is a very different issue.

And since most of the uses of the "REST" acronym have little to do with actually RESTful system, the rise and fall of the buzzword has no relation with the rise and fall of RESTful system (which, objectively, have had very little rise in the first place)