>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.

You sound upset. Chill out, buddy.

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

> 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.

If only there was a formal name for that behavior.

> 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.

The blog post is from 2004 -- about nine years ago -- a time when there really wasn't much information about REST out there aside from Roy Fielding's dissertation. I recall reading this essay a few years later during my own what-the-heck-is-this-REST-thing-all-about phase and finding it relatively helpful.

If he'd just published this blog post today your criticism would have a lot more merit.

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.