Yes, The article is talking about REST as in "JSON RPC over HTTP" as opposed to REST as the person who came up with it (Roy Fielding) intended.
If you are worrying about URL readability you aren't doing REST.
If you are worrying about URL readability you aren't doing REST.
The single best slideshare I've found on REST is Teach a Dog to REST. Old but gold. https://www.slideshare.net/landlessness/teach-a-dog-to-rest
(And a shameful plug - https://medium.com/@rdsubhas/pitiful-restful-urls-5d576ffccb...)
> RESTful URLs are not to be treated like SEO URLs
So the recommendations in the article are actually valid and useful, but we'd need to come up with another name to properly distinguish which "REST" we're talking about, at least unless/until one of these usages fades into obscurity.
"Underspecified, broken half-implementation of RPC" is quite precise, but most of the programmers don't like being reminded that they implement a brain-dead idea.
I never understood why people don't use one of the already-defined RPC protocols, rolling instead their own versions (each different) that don't even signal errors properly.