This post has got my dander up a bit. Billed (and linked from infoq) as "REST – The Good, the Bad and the Ugly," as far as I can tell the only bad and ugly is "people can misuse REST."
This, of course, is true, but then people could misuse the Mona Lisa (perhaps by smashing a friend over the head with it) and it would not take away from the fact that the painting itself it quite beautiful. Perhaps the point is that REST is easy to misuse, and perhaps that is true. However, I suspect that the true cause of the rampant REST misuse in the Real World is the surprisingly small number of really good REST-over-HTTP libraries, a fact which, to the author's credit, is noted in the article.
I would only note, then, that instead of writing a post with an obviously inflammatory name that purports to be a discussion of the REST architectural style's strengths and weaknesses, the author should have focused on the strengths and weaknesses of various REST-over-HTTP libraries, or perhaps a comparison of real world case studies that highlight the cases where REST does and does not actually work. Unfortunately, the article as written is a complete waste of bits.