REST: everything old is new again?

Dave Winer dave@userland.com
Sat, 25 Aug 2001 12:27:03 -0700


Right on Jeff. The REST argument is a rehash of OOP. We had a three-year
discussion about this in the Mac scripting market. Apple wanted what's
called REST now. The scripting language built for this system is quite
mature, it's called AppleScript and you don't have to guess what it might
look like, you can read all about it.

http://www.google.com/search?q=applescript

Now interestingly, outside of Apple, most scripting languages are
Algol-like. Even they can map onto an object model. No problem there.
There's nothing in the way of REST. The argument seems to be over whether we
"like" it or not. What's to like or not like. It's well known. It will
appeal to some, and not to others.

Dave


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Bone" <jbone@jump.net>
To: <wdh@alum.mit.edu>; <fork@xent.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: REST: everything old is new again?


>
>
> Bill Hofmann wrote:
>
> > The power of OO, to me, is a way of *codifying* best practices
> > for building code: Booch and cohorts didn't invent encapsulation
> > or other good things, they provided a *new way* of thinking that
> > made doing the right thing easier.
>
> So what happens when best practices turn out...  not to be?
>
> The whole REST argument has me thinking back to the early OOP
> hypestorm back in the late 80s.  The whole point was "reusability."
> But for all the focus on reusability, I wonder if OOP has even come
> close to achieving the reusability experienced by UNIX shell tool
> users...  it would be interesting to know, for instance, how many
> times in non-tool application code various POSIX system calls have
> ever been called relative to how many times its been called by a
> small set of higher-level components like grep, etc.
>
> One fundamental question lurking in all of this is:  how do we best
> achieve reusability so that we can all build on each other's work?
>
> jb
>
>
>
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork