|
|
|
|
|
by treve
701 days ago
|
|
In my opinion the GraphQL 'wake up call' (if we can call it that) has less to do with its intrinsic value. With the right team, with the right use-case it's excellent. So please don't take it as GraphQL=bad. However I think we've seen a lot of 'GraphQL as the default paradigm from the get-go', which I think is a trap and has caused a fair bit of pain for all the small startups out there that were sold on this. |
|
If a framework requires you to be just as, if not more competent in its niches to achieve the same end you could've achieved without it, I think that makes it bad.
That's like if an HTTP framework could only be effective at the protocol level with a team competent in HTTP. The whole point of a framework is abstraction.
I have never once seen how GraphQL (the language) provides any sort of abstraction that the general framework itself doesn't, and the little abstraction GraphQL the framework does provide you can mostly sum up by just generating an OpenAPI over a set of schemas, with a whole host of benefits and few trade offs (on the implementation side, which is where your 10x devs usually live anyways).
It's weird. It's like the main benefit of GraphQL is that there are groups of developers who understand it, but the biggest drawback is that it is needlessly complex, which again, seems to indicate GraphQL is bad. It's an abstraction that creates needless complexity (that you necessarily can't reverse because it's apart of the spec..)