| I'm pretty disappointed by this title. I know that it might be said in fun - and is an easy way to get clicks, but it feeds into the narrative of new, shiny tech. As the article points out at the end, there are very real engineering tradeoffs with GraphQL - and the answer isn't as easy as REST is dead, anachronistic technology that no engineer should consider (the XML analogy felt particularly inflammatory). Kelly and I were chatting about GraphQL, and his post might be a more thoughtful engineering post: http://kellysutton.com/2017/01/02/do-we-need-graphql.html (the title - Do we need GraphQL? - is at least the way I'd expect engineers to approach the problem, where he discusses the tradeoffs) In my MongoDB series, I point out a past case where Free Code Camp fed the hype, by telling engineers that the reason everyone had to learn the MEAN stack was due to employability in the software industry: https://medium.freecodecamp.org/the-real-reason-to-learn-the... (you had to dig into the article to realize that their argument was more nuanced, and that they taught SQL first before MongoDB) A number of "engineering" posts are not written as a thoughtful engineer might, and are in many ways marketing for the products sold (like a training program or code camp). |
I think this is a great insight that is often overlooked in tech marketing. When any vendor comes up with a product that claims "[industry standard] is dead, use [our product]", there should be alarm bells ringing already.