4 ms·

Amazing. Original comment I've reacted to: > Yeah, right. Because that SQL query will just magically write itself. Oh, just did, sorry > Especially if that

by lyxsus 6y ago

Amazing. Original comment I've reacted to: > Yeah, right. Because that SQL query will just magically write itself. Oh, just did, sorry > Especially if that ad-hoc GraphQL query requests extra fields Just did, whoops parent comment: > GraphQL allows you to do all of this in a single HTTP request, single SQL query and with 0 lines written by backend developer. Just did, ha-ha! Does it allow it? Yes, just as illustrated. > I were to tell you that most applications that use graphql are not using, or going to use, some singular magic tool That's not relevant and you know it. > So therefore, it is not applicable, for most applications, and the original comment was correct. Critical logic error, no intelligent lifeforms detected.

stale2002 6y ago
> That's not relevant and you know it. It is pretty relevant actually. Because, as the original poster stated "Just because you stumbled across a single application server that can do that doesn't mean it's true for GraphQL in general." In general, when talking about most graphql applications, that people use, the original statement is true. So the original statement is true, for most people. Which was the other person's point. I'd note once again that the statement was "in general". Usually, when discussing large frameworks, and technical issues, that effect many people, we are mostly concerned with how it applies to the vast majority of people and applications.
- lyxsus 6y ago
  In general. In general what? You can't take an advantage of having an abundant amount of data about data sources, schema and query you're about to execute (in general)? The original example simply illustrates that if you have the right problem and understand it well, you can work on it a bit and make it look like magic. It says "G has some property, that lets us do X to solve problem Y", to what the other guys says "No, G doesn't have these properties, because you can't apply X to solve Z. And W." How dumb is that? It's not an alternative to SQL in general and it's not a drop-in replacement for backend. Do you realise, that I can run graphql entirely in browser and make resolvers call the same rest api? That'll work pretty well. Or that also looks too problematic? > we are mostly concerned with how it applies to the vast majority of people and applications Applications – yes, people – no. In last couple of years I saw a few dozens implementations of graphql on a backend and I think only 2-3 were really good. The rest is usually a complete clusterfuck and I wish they didn't use it and never touched it. But that's also true for too many other things. So maybe you're right. Maybe if somebody realises that his competence isn't enough, it's better to stay away.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > It's not an alternative to SQL in general and it's not a drop-in replacement for backend Oh, awesome! So then you agree with the original commentary then, that we cannot just replace all this with "0 lines written by a backend developer". Great.
    - lyxsus 6y ago
      Why don’t you just quote the word “by”? I agree with the word “by”. I fully support it and appreciate how precise and representative it is with respect to the topic. Thank you for walking that path with me, I am defeated by your debating skills and have no hope to recover.

by lyxsus 6y ago

stale2002 6y ago

> That's not relevant and you know it. It is pretty relevant actually. Because, as the original poster stated "Just because you stumbled across a single application server that can do that doesn't mean it's true for GraphQL in general." In general, when talking about most graphql applications, that people use, the original statement is true. So the original statement is true, for most people. Which was the other person's point. I'd note once again that the statement was "in general". Usually, when discussing large frameworks, and technical issues, that effect many people, we are mostly concerned with how it applies to the vast majority of people and applications.

lyxsus 6y ago
In general. In general what? You can't take an advantage of having an abundant amount of data about data sources, schema and query you're about to execute (in general)? The original example simply illustrates that if you have the right problem and understand it well, you can work on it a bit and make it look like magic. It says "G has some property, that lets us do X to solve problem Y", to what the other guys says "No, G doesn't have these properties, because you can't apply X to solve Z. And W." How dumb is that? It's not an alternative to SQL in general and it's not a drop-in replacement for backend. Do you realise, that I can run graphql entirely in browser and make resolvers call the same rest api? That'll work pretty well. Or that also looks too problematic? > we are mostly concerned with how it applies to the vast majority of people and applications Applications – yes, people – no. In last couple of years I saw a few dozens implementations of graphql on a backend and I think only 2-3 were really good. The rest is usually a complete clusterfuck and I wish they didn't use it and never touched it. But that's also true for too many other things. So maybe you're right. Maybe if somebody realises that his competence isn't enough, it's better to stay away.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > It's not an alternative to SQL in general and it's not a drop-in replacement for backend Oh, awesome! So then you agree with the original commentary then, that we cannot just replace all this with "0 lines written by a backend developer". Great.
  - lyxsus 6y ago
    Why don’t you just quote the word “by”? I agree with the word “by”. I fully support it and appreciate how precise and representative it is with respect to the topic. Thank you for walking that path with me, I am defeated by your debating skills and have no hope to recover.