Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How I Explained REST to My Wife (2004)

tomayko.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 52 posts

Re: How I Explained REST to My Wife (2004)

#31

Post by ebbv »

matt_yoho wrote: post #30
ebbv wrote: post #28

I can't stand the "blog post as conversation" format. It's fine if you're quoting a conversation for one or two paragraphs, but for something this long you should do me (the reader) the courtesy of speaking directly to me. Also this is giving way too much credit for the creation of the URL. The format of the URL is not some miracle, genius insight. It is a natural result of network computing, and similar descriptors…

This is an example of a Socratic Dialog[1], and relies on metaphor. It's in that way a piece of art useful as a teaching tool, but as such it trades some precision for the end effect. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_dialogue

This is condescending, and relies on the assumption that I don't know anything about anything and just fell off the turnip truck last week.

I think something would have to be done with a bit more art and skill before I would consider it Socratic dialogue. This is just a clumsy blog post that is annoying to read, IMHO.

Re: How I Explained REST to My Wife (2004)

#32

Post by phillmv »

ebbv wrote: post #31
matt_yoho wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an example of a Socratic Dialog[1], and relies on metaphor. It's in that way a piece of art useful as a teaching tool, but as such it trades some precision for the end effect. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_dialogue

This is condescending, and relies on the assumption that I don't know anything about anything and just fell off the turnip truck last week. I think something would have to be done with a bit more art and skill before I would consider it Socratic dialogue. This is just a clumsy blog post that is annoying to read, IMHO.

>This is condescending, and relies on the assumption that I don't know anything about anything and just fell off the turnip truck last week.

Well, obviously you didn't get it.

> but for something this long you should do me (the reader) the courtesy of speaking directly to me.

Your comment is also full of pointless vitriol.

I think it's one of the most succinct and well done explanations of an abstract academese concept loads of people quote but few people seem to understand. I refer to this blog post often.

Re: How I Explained REST to My Wife (2004)

#33

Post by jiggy2011 »

ebbv wrote: post #31
matt_yoho wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an example of a Socratic Dialog[1], and relies on metaphor. It's in that way a piece of art useful as a teaching tool, but as such it trades some precision for the end effect. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_dialogue

This is condescending, and relies on the assumption that I don't know anything about anything and just fell off the turnip truck last week. I think something would have to be done with a bit more art and skill before I would consider it Socratic dialogue. This is just a clumsy blog post that is annoying to read, IMHO.

I don't know anything about Socrates but I sometimes find that internalising an idiot who doesn't know anything and then trying to explain my ideas to them (sometimes whilst walking round in circles audibly talking to myself) is a useful thought process.

Re: How I Explained REST to My Wife (2004)

#34

Post by B-Con »

ebbv wrote: post #31
matt_yoho wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an example of a Socratic Dialog[1], and relies on metaphor. It's in that way a piece of art useful as a teaching tool, but as such it trades some precision for the end effect. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_dialogue

This is condescending, and relies on the assumption that I don't know anything about anything and just fell off the turnip truck last week. I think something would have to be done with a bit more art and skill before I would consider it Socratic dialogue. This is just a clumsy blog post that is annoying to read, IMHO.

> This is condescending, and relies on the assumption that I don't know anything about anything and just fell off the turnip truck last week.

I would not overlook the possibility that they were just excited to formally reference something called "Socratic dialogue". It seems we like finding formal names for things on HN.

Re: How I Explained REST to My Wife (2004)

#35

Post by ebbv »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #33
ebbv wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is condescending, and relies on the assumption that I don't know anything about anything and just fell off the turnip truck last week. I think something would have to be done with a bit more art and skill before I would consider it Socratic dialogue. This is just a clumsy blog post that is annoying to read, IMHO.

I don't know anything about Socrates but I sometimes find that internalising an idiot who doesn't know anything and then trying to explain my ideas to them (sometimes whilst walking round in circles audibly talking to myself) is a useful thought process.

Sure, that's a great technique. But IMHO, don't write down the conversation as it occurs in your head. Spend the time filtering it into a more readable article.

Re: How I Explained REST to My Wife (2004)

#36

Post by ebbv »

phillmv wrote: post #32
ebbv wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is condescending, and relies on the assumption that I don't know anything about anything and just fell off the turnip truck last week. I think something would have to be done with a bit more art and skill before I would consider it Socratic dialogue. This is just a clumsy blog post that is annoying to read, IMHO.

>This is condescending, and relies on the assumption that I don't know anything about anything and just fell off the turnip truck last week. Well, obviously you didn't get it. > but for something this long you should do me (the reader) the courtesy of speaking directly to me. Your comment is also full of pointless vitriol. I think it's one of the most succinct and well done explanations of an abstract academese conce…

You sound upset. Chill out, buddy.

Re: How I Explained REST to My Wife (2004)

#38

Post by bct »

sp332 wrote: post #25
WayneDB wrote: post #14

What a bunch of hogwash. Everything does not fit into the request/response model of HTTP and the Internet is certainly the web.

Email (not webmail, but IMAP and POP etc) uses the internet but is not part of the web. There are other examples but I think that's the easiest to see.

"The web" isn't exactly a well-defined concept. There's a school of thought in which anything with a URI is part of the web.

Re: How I Explained REST to My Wife (2004)

#39

Post by kragen »

ebbv wrote: post #28

I can't stand the "blog post as conversation" format. It's fine if you're quoting a conversation for one or two paragraphs, but for something this long you should do me (the reader) the courtesy of speaking directly to me. Also this is giving way too much credit for the creation of the URL. The format of the URL is not some miracle, genius insight. It is a natural result of network computing, and similar descriptors…

It seems natural in retrospect, but it actually took a surprisingly long time to invent. The URL didn't exist until 1990; people had been putting files on FTP sites since 1973 or so, 27 years at that point, and there wasn't even a standard piece of software which, given "wuarchive.wustl.edu:/foo/bar/baz.txt", would give you the contents of baz.txt. (ncftp supported that by 1994, IIRC, but no vendor shipped ncftp as standard.)

Obviously it wasn't that people couldn't figure out how to do that. It's that nobody understood that it was an important thing to be able to do. It seems really obvious in retrospect, but it wasn't.

Today, there still are a surprising number of people who create network-accessible persistent objects without making them URL-addressable. Apparently it's still not obvious to everyone that it's an important thing to be able to do.

Rohit Khare's article, "Who Killed Gopher?", helps to make the history a little clearer: http://www.ics.uci.edu/~rohit/IEEE-L7-http-gopher.html

Re: How I Explained REST to My Wife (2004)

#40

Post by phillmv »

ebbv wrote: post #36
phillmv wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is condescending, and relies on the assumption that I don't know anything about anything and just fell off the turnip truck last week. Well, obviously you didn't get it. > but for something this long you should do me (the reader) the courtesy of speaking directly to me. Your comment is also full of pointless vitriol. I think it's one of the most succinct and well done explanations of an abstract academese conce…

You sound upset. Chill out, buddy.

Oh, me? I'm perfectly calm. I didn't want to sound too condescending.
Post reply on HN