[wmdmark]

Fair points. The thing that tipped in favor of GraphQL for the back-end was that it puts the client in charge of the data structure. I suppose you could hack something like that with REST but it would be difficult. Our application is by no means narrow or simple and GraphQL (without Redux) has been perfect. I don't dislike Redux, we just didn't need it after switching to GraphQL.

[nawitus]

>I suppose you could hack something like that with REST but it would be difficult.

Not really. You can design specific REST endpoints to return the data in the format you want.

[lparry]

And now your frontenders need to know how to write code in whatever your backend is written in, lest every new change be bottlenecked waiting for someone to build them new endpoints. Also, your backend guys are tied up constantly doing stupid endpoint changes, and both teams are wasting time messing around with extra effort to allow one side to be deployed before the other, instead of working on actual functionality work. Doing this in REST is a genuinely unpleasant experience, well deserving of being called hacky

[dmitriid]

> And now your frontenders need to know how to write code in whatever your backend is written in

Wat.

Frontenders can write their frontend code in whatever they see fit. REST is a contract on data and format of the data between frontend and backend.

> Also, your backend guys are tied up constantly doing stupid endpoint changes, and both teams are wasting time messing around with extra effort to allow one side to be deployed before the other, instead of working on actual functionality work.

Well, if your teams are dysfunctional, then of course, that's what you will end up having.

Now tell me:

- what will you do when your glorious ad hoc GraphQL query ands up bringing the database to its knees?

- what will happen when your glorious GraphQL schema doesn't have all the data the frontend needs?

[lparry]

> Frontenders can write their frontend code in whatever they see fit. REST is a contract on data and format of the data between frontend and backend.

Oh, it’s a contract? Amazing, I guess that means you can just update the contract and nobody is stuck doing busywork anymore. Nope? I guess then either your frontenders need to learn your backend stack, lest they be stuck waiting for someone to do the busywork for them. I feel like I’m repeating myself, because I am. Please don’t quote out of context

> Now tell me: > - what will you do when your glorious ad hoc GraphQL query ands up bringing the database to its knees? > - what will happen when your glorious GraphQL schema doesn't have all the data the frontend needs?

Sound like interesting, challenging, and satisfying problems for the backenders to work on. Certainly more so than adding/removing fields from serialisers. These also seem like much more rare problems than the small data requirement changes that are the backbone of frontend work.

I’d rather work on speeding up the things that slow down development and deal with performance when it becomes a problem. I dunno, maybe our experience differ, and in you world your app is relatively static and performance is crucial, but the world I exist in involves stakeholders constantly wanting minor changes, performance has never been a problem, and development is constantly blocking because of frontend/backend blockers on our “rest” api and capacity on either side being wasted at various times because of that blocking.

Sure, sometime someone’s going to write a horrendous graphQL query where the answer is going to be “sorry, we can’t make that perfomant so we have to disallow it”, but that’s a: solvable and b: going to happen a lot less often than your frontend is going to need an extra field (or no longer need a field, but since nothing breaks these change requests rarely come through and your backend is eternally querying and sending unused data over the wire)

[dmitriid]

> I guess then either your frontenders need to learn your backend stack

Why would frontenders need to learn the backend stack? Do you even know what REST is?

Riddle me this: what happens when frontend developers need data not exposed by the GraphQL schema? Do the need to learn the backend stuff as well? If not, why would they need that for REST?

> satisfying problems for the backenders to work on. Certainly more so than adding/removing fields from serialisers.

Because GraphQL automagically knows how serialize-deserialize any schema, riiiight.

> but the world I exist in involves stakeholders constantly wanting minor changes

So. How do you deal with those changes? Oh, let me see: you change schemas, you write new serializers/deserializers etc.

> development is constantly blocking because of frontend/backend blockers on our “rest” api and capacity on either side being wasted at various times because of that blocking.

For some reason you blame your failing processes on technology. Fix the process.

[joshribakoff]

- what will you do when your glorious ad hoc GraphQL query ands up bringing the database to its knees?

With REST you can have an N+1 query, but you're making multiple round trips from the client to the server. With GraphQL, you can also write an N+1 query, so you can shoot yourself in the foot either way.

I would probably use graphql-middleware to log the backend calls, or just look at my backend's log, identify the N+1 query and instrument data loader to batch it out. But of course you should load test your app before even shipping it so why would you have this problem unless you do not test?

- what will happen when your glorious GraphQL schema doesn't have all the data the frontend needs?

I can add the field without impacting existing clients that I have shipped. With REST, the old clients would also get the new field.

- if your teams are dysfunctional, then of course, that's what you will end up having.

The point is that your teams can function independently of each other, each focusing more effort on doing their own job & less time syncing with the other team.

[dmitriid]

> With REST you can have an N+1 query, but you're making multiple round trips from the client to the server.

With REST I can specifically optimise the calls because I know the contract and the possible incoming/outgoing requests.

> I can add the field without impacting existing clients that I have shipped. With REST, the old clients would also get the new field.

Why are so many people discussing REST in GraphQL threads so oblivious of what REST is?

One word: versioning

> The point is that your teams can function independently of each other, each focusing more effort on doing their own job & less time syncing with the other team.

Don't blame your failing processes on technology. There's nothing magical in GraphQL that makes it a magical thing making teams independent of each other. Tell me: what happens when frontend team requests data that's not exposed in the GraphQL schema?

[joshribakoff]

> Why are so many people discussing REST in GraphQL threads so oblivious of what REST is?

Why are you discussing graphQL you're oblivious to the problem it solves. Graphql obviates the need to version, like with REST. Facebook had that problem with 30k react components, their processes are fine. My processes are fine too, you are obviously just biased against graphQL. You can specifically optimize a graphQL query by the way.

Versioning creates an explosion of REST end points in fast changing code bases. GraphQL solves that problem. If you don't have that problem then don't use it. You don't need to insult other people who are explaining the benefits it had in their project. That seems oddly defensive of REST, which is the de facto transport for a GraphQL query (they aren't even mutually exclusive). This comment thread is like arguing what is the better fruit apples or potato. And potatoes aren't a fruit

[bmn__]

> Why are so many people discussing REST in GraphQL threads so oblivious of what REST is?

It's on purpose. You can see it how Graphql is marketed in tech meet-ups. The proponents always argue against strawmen. I find it disgusting.

[nawitus]

Well, that's why I work with full-stack developers who can do both changes at the same time.

[matte_black]

Could controlling the shape of the data returned by GraphQL on the client open up your application to really inefficient querying?

We control what is returned in data from our REST API by merely specifying the fields you want as a parameter. If there are use cases that would require multiple tables to be joined, those are created ahead of time as views with appropriate triggers for updates and then endpoints are created for accessing that view through RESTful methods. This has always worked just fine.

[_xgw]

Doesn't that lead to an explosion of the number of sql views and backend controllers/endpoints?

[matte_black]

Not at all. Not sure what other people are trying to do though.

[joshribakoff]

Being able to stay agile & change the app, without breaking old versions of the app, and without having to have an explosion of ad-hoc end-points for every change you've ever made. With graphQL its perfectly reasonable to never rename or delete fields, and never break backwards compatibility. With REST that would not work & would result in over-fetching, or tons of ad-hoc end points for every query you've ever written.