• Dunstabzugshaubitze@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    I’d Agree in most cases, but not in this one.

    Rigor in definitions allows us to express a lot of complex things in a compact form. this allows us to treat “Cars” as something different than “Motorcycles” while both a motorized vehicles.

    the same is true for REST-API and other API-Types, while all of them are just a means to allow services to exchange data, they tell us a lot about how this exchange happens and what to expect, but only if we use the words in a way that they represent the concept they were meant to represent. Otherwise we end up with meaningless buzz words like “rest”, “agile”, “scrum”, “artificial intelligence” and so forth, instead of meaningful terms found in the jargon of other engineering disciplines like “magnetism”, “gravity” or “motor”.

    • frezik
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      We’re well past that. I would probably care more if the original idea behind REST solved a real problem, but it doesn’t. It’s architecture astronaut stuff.

      If REST is just about using HTTP verbs and status codes smarter, and sending the payload in JSON, I’m good to leave it at that. It’s useful.

      • vzq@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 month ago

        Besides, the original definition is not reflective of real world needs - which is why it’s morphed to something else.