REST was never about CRUD
I know it&#x27;s not technically correct, but the conceptual definition I&#x27;ve found useful for myself is that REST is about operating on the HTTP layer instead of building your own layers on top of it. Why create your own custom error protocol when you can use HTTP error codes? Why develop your own caching strategy when you can use HTTP caching? Why create your own authentication mechanism when you can use HTTP authentication over TLS (or client certificates, or etc.)? When the article talks about how REST should be layered, cacheable, and client-agnostic, that&#x27;s really the core of it to me.<p>By thinking this way, you can see how REST helps you re-use already-existing infrastructure---proxies, load balancers, caches, etc.---instead of spending time and effort making custom solutions. It also helps provide guidance as to when REST may not be appropriate: can you answer those &quot;why not HTTP?&quot; questions?<p>I&#x27;ve also found focusing on the resource&#x2F;noun aspect (beyond considering caching) to be a bit of a &quot;nerd trap&quot;; it&#x27;s possible to spend a lot of time chasing the perfect, &quot;correct&quot;, solution. As the article notes, there&#x27;s nothing wrong with &quot;verby&quot; URLs as long as you are using HTTP instead of doing your own thing.