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 a

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.