[timr]

> Either you will have complexity maintaining a bunch of endpoints, keeping track of where each one is used, what is returned, where the contracts are defined, writing tests to make sure nothing breaks, .... Sure, you might not have much abstraction and it will be cleaner that way, but it will be a nightmare to maintain, especially in the phase when you are moving fast and breaking things as you find market fit

Yeah, I hear this argument a lot, but it hasn't been a problem in my lived experience. Certainly for small teams (and absolutely for apps written by one person), it's not that hard to keep track of the endpoints. Even for larger orgs, teams tended to want to keep their endpoint counts low, and would push back on the sorts of expansions in back-end complexity that these frameworks (i.e. GQL) make "easy" (but in reality, just kick the technical complexity can down the road; it's a lot easier to see the horrible DB queries when they're not invented dynamically by the one GQL query you didn't think of, written by some Future Intern who doesn't know any better).

I can see how this becomes more of a concern when you've got a massive org that has doubled down on microservices, but that's not most orgs.

[Jonovono]

That's fair. In my experience, once the endpoints get above a handful id rather not have to keep that all in working memory. And say you have several clients: android, ios, web, internal tooling, cli, rebase, etc. You make a change to 1 endpoint, now you have to remember everywhere you consume that client? Even 5 endpoints, 5 clients things are getting complex to keep in your head.

I'd much rather if I make a change to an endpoint, my project literally won't build and my IDE yells at me. I can make sweeping changes and go to sleep knowing I didn't mess anything up. And I know if I bring another engineer on, they can make sweeping (or tiny) changes and not have to know all of the places that consume that.

I should also note that WG doesn't require graphql. I have a few graphql operations, but you could use it completely without any graphql operations.

[timr]

> I'd much rather if I make a change to an endpoint, my project literally won't build and my IDE yells at me. I can make sweeping changes and go to sleep knowing I didn't mess anything up. And I know if I bring another engineer on, they can make sweeping (or tiny) changes and not have to know all of the places that consume that.

I think you're making an allusion to GQL typing here, which I grant. A big downside of REST+JSON is that you've pushed most of the "interface contract" to the structure of the JSON file.

> I should also note that WG doesn't require graphql.

Sure. The common element to both (for me) is the layering of abstractions that hide what's really going on.

[Jonovono]

It's not GQL typing. None of my clients make GQL requests. I don't have apollo or any other junky Graphql client anywhere in my clients. All my clients still just make simple rest rpc requests. The benefit is that I have generated these clients to make these requests from simple typescript operations, or graphql operations (which the GQL is just specified on the server)

Ya, for rest and json that was my challenge. I liked the idea of openapi, but manually creating openapi docs was just not much fun.

If you are really curious about WG approach this is a good intro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3YrZav5-CU. They have some contrarian takes within the graphql community