Dave Winer: REST vs. SOAP.
I was asked by a reporter to explain the
debateabout SOAP vs REST.
Fallacy of distraction: False dilemma. Two choices are given when in fact there are more choices.
SOAP and XML-RPC were started to make it easy to build applications that viewed the Internet as if it were a LAN. It builds on the philosophy of personal computers.
Fallacy of definition: Too narrow. The definition does not include all the items which should be included.
Fallacy of explanation: Limited depth. The theory which explains phenomena does not appeal to underlying causes.
REST was a retrofit by people who don’t like personal computers to try to stop progress in building GUI software that ran over the Internet.
Fallacy of definition: Failure to elucidate. The definition is harder to understand than the term being defined.
Argument ad hominem. The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself.
SOAP is a good idea. Has been a good idea for a long time.
Begging the question. The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises.
The distinction between SOAP and REST is minimal.
Inductive fallacy: False analogy. The two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissimilar.
If they would just roll up their sleeves and build some toolkits they could stop complaining about SOAP. But the people who promote REST aren’t people who actively develop software.
Argument ad hominem. The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself.
Round 1 to Stephen’s Guide to Logical Fallacies. This is mildly amusing. I wonder how much of it could be automated.
(Interested in a real-world example of people using REST to build GUI software that runs over the Internet? Check out RESTlog over at The Well-Formed Web.)
§
I am no longer accepting public comments on this post, but you can use this form to contact me privately. (Your message will not be published.)
§
© 2001–9 Mark Pilgrim