[davidcuddeback]

> Also schema is like working with SOAP's WSDL all over again.

Glad to hear that I'm not the only one who feels that way. I still like using simple tools like curl to try out APIs. It's so much easier to demonstrate an issue to a coworker when you can copy/paste a curl command in email/chat/PR. My (admittedly limited) experience with GraphQL so far has been that it makes this more awkward.

[vicarrion]

This is the static vs dynamic type argument at its heart. When making small apps, dynamic wins out from not having to declare or think too much about types. After some threshold in complexity having static types is much better.

[davidcuddeback]

> This is the static vs dynamic type argument at its heart.

I think you're commenting on GraphQL vs REST itself, and I don't disagree with what you're saying. Your comment, however, seems disconnected from what I attempted to express in the comment that you replied to. My comment was probably not clear, so I'll try to explain:

My comment is about the tooling and its effects on my workflow, which is mostly orthogonal to static vs dynamic typing. Specifically, I'm expressing a preference for simple tools over special-purpose tools. It was very common for me to test REST APIs with curl and share curl commands on team chat that others could copy/paste to reproduce something. SOAP and GraphQL tend to encourage the use of specialized tools, which adds friction to this kind of workflow (which happens on a daily basis). In fact, what I've seen since adopting GraphQL is people sharing screenshots from their IDE. It's in that respect that working with GraphQL reminds me a lot of working with SOAP.

That said, I don't think GraphQL is as bad as SOAP in this respect. I can still use curl to test out GraphQL APIs. It's just a bit awkward and takes longer to construct the command. I don't remember ever doing that with SOAP, but it's also been a long time since I've used a SOAP API.

Returning to your analogy to static vs dynamic typing, I completely agree about static typing helping manage complexity [1], but it doesn't dictate which tool I use. I can write C programs in vim or I can write them in XCode, Visual Studio, or some other IDE. I prefer vim. GraphQL and SOAP feel like using a language that almost forces me to use an IDE.

[1] Static vs dynamic typing isn't the whole story, though. There's also strong vs weak typing. Haskell and C are both statically typed, but Haskell is strongly typed whereas C is usually considered weakly typed. Strong typing helps manage complexity compared to weak typing.

[yen223]

We use GraphQL in production. A combination of GraphQL schema types and Flow types means, at compile time we can catch a lot of client-side bugs caused by server-side changes.

It's a real game-changer.