[hansonkd]

> if you have to involve a backend team to add restrictions to the graphql endpoints and try to make good educated guesses where those might be, then the idea of frontend not needing backend engineers

No because if you dont do that you have to involve more engineers anyways to build the REST endpoints and keep modifying the rest endpoints.

GraphQL is also default restrictive (i.e. exposes nothing). You don't need to add engineers to make it restrictive.

In Startups typically:

  -> Frontend changes most frequently
  -> Backend "utility functions " changes less
  -> Data model changes the least

Without Graphql your "backend" ends up needing to have a lot of work and changes because it is constantly needing to be updated to the needs of the most frequent changes happening on the frontend.

With GraphQL the only time you need to update the backend is when those "utility" functions change (i.e. 3rd party api calls, etc) or the data model changes.

So you end up needing substantially less backend engineers.

[BiteCode_dev]

But you actually don't need to keep modifying the REST endpoints for most projects, that's what everybody is saying.

The vast majority of projects don't gain anything from this flexibility, because you don't have suddenly a 1000 of farmvilles copy cat that need their own little queries. You just have bob that need an order by.

[smaudet]

> With GraphQL the only time you need to update the backend is when those "utility" functions change (i.e. 3rd party api calls, etc) or the data model changes.

This is akin to saying that "directly exposing the database is easier, you only have to change things if the data changes".

And yes this is true, but when the data changes, or the environment changes, the paradigm falls apart a bit, no? Which is what the backend code was for, insulation from that.

> In Startups typically:

Yes, so for a short lived, non-scaled application its far easier to do it one way, and maybe that's fine for most small apps (that will never scale far). I suspect a lot of the push back comes from larger, less nimble, more backwards-compat focused organizations/apps.

[hansonkd]

> This is akin to saying that "directly exposing the database is easier

Far from it actually. I am saying that in practice the data and queries that you perform on your Database actually tend to stabilize and you add less and less as time goes on.

By Allowing the frontend to select what combination of these pre-approved queries that you already approved it can use, you have to do less and less backend work when compared to REST where you have to do backend work for every query combination you want to serve.

> maybe that's fine for most small apps (that will never scale far).

I mean saying GQL doesn't scale for big apps is over looking one of the largest Corporate Software Orgs (FB) created and use it in production purposefully for managing large software APIs.

[smaudet]

> By Allowing the frontend to select what combination of these pre-approved queries that you already approved it can use

Sure, so you are just filtering raw database access then. That doesn't make it any different - and, you still need to approve and filter these queries, so what exactly have you saved? I.e. either the front end engineers can change these filters, or not, so it amounts to the same thing in the case they can.

> I mean saying GQL doesn't scale for big apps is over looking one of the largest Corporate Software Orgs (FB) created and use it in production purposefully for managing large software APIs.

That's not a great argument, though, saying a large company with many resources is capable of supporting something does not make it a sustainable technical decision. They likely also have a very specific work structure they use to make it for them.

In fact thats a strong reason not to use it, if it requires enterprise level resources to use it effectively. There is a big difference between technologies that scale to enterprise and technologies that require enterprise...

It still comes down to, if you can achieve 99% of the same thing with autogenerated REST apis and a couple page specific apis, what, exactly, is worth the considerable increase in complexity for that remaining 1%? Making things regularly more complex is a hallmark of failed, bad technologies, and I suspect GraphQL will see the dustbin like SOAP did...

[hansonkd]

You are bouncing back between it is ony for startups and it requires enterprise level maintenance. It can be used easily for both.

> It still comes down to, if you can achieve 99% of the same thing with autogenerated REST apis and a couple page specific apis

Because you can get 100% by autogenerating GQL APIs and 0 page specific apis.

[smaudet]

>You are bouncing back between it is ony for startups and it requires enterprise level maintenance. It can be used easily for both.

No, I never said that. You are the one that brought FB into the equation.

Just because it can be used for something does not mean that it should.

I said that that approach doesn't scale well, especially for frequent data/model changes. For small apps, where as you say, you have few data changes, by all means embed your database as closely as possible to you end user code.

Sqlite inside a c app or electron, e.g. No need for any API at all! Just raw query access.

Its nice GQL to generate stuff for small non-changing web apps, I'm sure. But once you get into more performance oriented, data-migration-style stuff, if there's not good support for changing the data and reacting to the environment, then adding complexity (GQL) to an already complex situation is a Bad Idea.

You never said what this 1% was, autogeneration is not a bonus when you already have to manually filter and route things. The simpler solution gets you there as well, with less fuss.

You think you don't have page specific apis, but if you are doing the manual filtering, then you still have them, you are just "hiding" them inside another language, that doesn't have a clear benefit? At least you can't say what it is, without going in circles, another sign GQL is probably ultimately a garbage technology...