REST over HTTP uses standard HTTP methods with their HTTP-defined semantics rather than unnecessary ad hoc, API-specific extensions because, well, first, why would you do anything else if you want to use a standardized underlying protocol? And second because: “A REST API should not contain any changes to the communication protocols aside from filling-out or fixing the details of underspecified bits of standard protocols, [...]” https://roy.gbiv.com/untangled/2008/rest-apis-must-be-hypert...
I do an HTTP "post" to send up a JSON object as a request, and I get a JSON object back as the reply. No one is going to tell me there's a "simpler" way. There isn't.
For example, if I need to delete data, I'll call "deleteSomething" as an endpoint. I could care less if HTTP has a delete in it's language, because I don't want/need any of that coupled into my API or affecting my API in any way whatsoever.
That way my API can be moved to some non-HTTP pipe at some point and it will remain unchanged. It's just like how in good OOP you ideally code to 'interfaces' rather than coding to 'objects' directly.
Here's an example controller: https://github.com/Clay-Ferguson/quantizr/blob/master/src/ma...
You can tell it's perfectly type-safe on both client (TypeScript) and server (Java), and the API itself doesn't have any clue it's even be running over HTTP, and that's a good thing.
What you seem to be stating is that there's more to that on the web and that HTTP has a reason to exist. I agree. It makes sense for the language of the browser itself to be basic CRUD-type calls to servers (which is what HTTP is)
But for a specific RPC interface for a specific WebApp client, trying to meld THAT API into HTTP (the goal of REST) is awkward as all hell and that IS what everyone's using it for.