3 ms·

I think your use of the term "standardization" is slightly out of place here. When you say "standard", I think of something like IEEE 802.3 or FIPS 202. But wh

by Cyph0n 10y ago

I think your use of the term "standardization" is slightly out of place here. When you say "standard", I think of something like IEEE 802.3 or FIPS 202. But what do you really mean by "standardized" in this context? Is there a known consortium of companies that provides its stamp of approval on correct implementations of GraphQL? If not, what prevents me from implementing GraphQL incorrectly in, say, OCaml?

foota 10y ago
By standard he means there is a formal document you can point to and say "this is GraphQL"[https://facebook.github.io/graphql/ https://facebook.github.io/graphql/]
- leeoniya 10y ago
  there is a difference between a standard and a spec (which is what this is). and a spec is a slightly more formal version of thorough api docs.
- Cyph0n 10y ago
  Wait, so Facebook hasn't even released a reference implementation?
  - foota 10y ago
    They have, but specs are a more authoritative standard than a reference implementation.
    - Cyph0n 10y ago
      Definitely, but a spec without an implementation is even worse. It's like saying "we're not invested in this idea enough to implement it". Huge red flag in my view.
rising-sky 10y ago
A standard doesn't `prevent` you from doing anything, it just says this is the accepted criterion, gauge or yardstick of implementing something and by which that implementation will be judged. It can be established by an authority or custom. You can run off and disobey it if you want, your implementation will just be non-standard.
- Cyph0n 10y ago
  My whole gripe with OP is that he/she used the existence of a "standard" for GraphQL as an advantage over competing solutions. I can write up a fancy document and call it a "standard", but that doesn't mean shit in the real world unfortunately. This excerpt from Wikipedia might explain it better: "The existence of a published standard does not imply that it is always useful or correct. [...] The people who use the item or service (engineers, trade unions, etc.) or specify it (building codes, government, industry, etc.) have the responsibility to consider the available standards, specify the correct one, enforce compliance, and use the item correctly. Validation of suitability is necessary." In other words, when the GraphQL "standard" is accepted and endorsed by (for instance) Microsoft, Google, and Amazon as well, we can start listing standardization as an advantage that GraphQL has over other competing solutions.

by Cyph0n 10y ago

foota 10y ago

By standard he means there is a formal document you can point to and say "this is GraphQL"[https://facebook.github.io/graphql/ https://facebook.github.io/graphql/]

leeoniya 10y ago
there is a difference between a standard and a spec (which is what this is). and a spec is a slightly more formal version of thorough api docs.
Cyph0n 10y ago
Wait, so Facebook hasn't even released a reference implementation?
- foota 10y ago
  They have, but specs are a more authoritative standard than a reference implementation.
  - Cyph0n 10y ago
    Definitely, but a spec without an implementation is even worse. It's like saying "we're not invested in this idea enough to implement it". Huge red flag in my view.

rising-sky 10y ago

A standard doesn't `prevent` you from doing anything, it just says this is the accepted criterion, gauge or yardstick of implementing something and by which that implementation will be judged. It can be established by an authority or custom. You can run off and disobey it if you want, your implementation will just be non-standard.

Cyph0n 10y ago
My whole gripe with OP is that he/she used the existence of a "standard" for GraphQL as an advantage over competing solutions. I can write up a fancy document and call it a "standard", but that doesn't mean shit in the real world unfortunately. This excerpt from Wikipedia might explain it better: "The existence of a published standard does not imply that it is always useful or correct. [...] The people who use the item or service (engineers, trade unions, etc.) or specify it (building codes, government, industry, etc.) have the responsibility to consider the available standards, specify the correct one, enforce compliance, and use the item correctly. Validation of suitability is necessary." In other words, when the GraphQL "standard" is accepted and endorsed by (for instance) Microsoft, Google, and Amazon as well, we can start listing standardization as an advantage that GraphQL has over other competing solutions.