[gunderson]

did you read the comments on his blog post? There are some excellent points made.

You could achieve all of those things w/o using the REST standard, but then it's your standard... and there ought to be at least some reason for rolling your own if one already exists.

[paul]

Yeah, the comments are crazy and seem to completely miss the point.

HTTP is wonderful, but I've gotten along just fine without ever using PUT or DELETE or other bits of REST dogma, as has the rest of web. Sometimes my urls are actually verbs that I POST arguments to instead of "RESTful" nouns, and it works great.

[gunderson]

Right it may work for you, which is fine.

The point of REST that I thought really stood out in the comments was the one about caching.

If you know that any GET request can be cached subject to whatever is in the expires header or etag, that is hugely useful information when scaling.

REST is not a straight jacket, it's just a simple way of making the /site/url/you/use + the method mean something consistent and logical.