It would have been nice if he proposed something innovative moving forward, but this is a step back to RPC-structured APIs. After reading this though, I had to check to make sure it wasn't April 1st.
I think the whole point the article is trying to make is that REST isn't really a step forward from RPC. It just adds an overly restrictive taxonomy (i.e. in a complex practical application, you're probably going to run into a problem that doesn't fit the REST model well), and doesn't actually solve any real problems.
REST doesn't add "restrictions". REST describes constraints that - if you can work within them - provide certain guarantees and benefits and capabilities. It solves a bunch of real problems. REST wasn't just pulled out of thin air - it was an attempt to describe how the web itself works at global scale.
That may be the point of the article, but neither it nor any of the other instance of people making similar claims I've seen supports it convincingly.
Gaining experience in technology is absolutely exhausting. Everyday there are posts, "New Shiny X!" and then six months later "Introducing No-X". Then a year later "New Shiny Y! Like X but without sesame seeds on the buns!"
This is one of my biggest problems with the software industry. It isn't just the posts, but the tooling / utilities / frameworks / languages as well. If you are smart enough to improve something, there is no fame in contributing to the open source project, some people would rather just re-write their own and attempt to force it down everyones throat.
It's pretty much required, if you want to change what the existing project thinks is "the right way to do something"