My usual experiene is that people use GraphQL wrong. GraphQL's primary use case is to homogenize access to a bunch of heteregenous backend services. If you find

My usual experiene is that people use GraphQL wrong. GraphQL's primary use case is to homogenize access to a bunch of heteregenous backend services. If you find yourself just taking your Postgres database and creating a 1:1 mapping between your tables and GraphQL, this probably isn't a good fit as you'r ejust adding another layer for no reason. > No clear path for Api versioning GraphQL came about as a way for mobile clients to call backend services. At Facebook, once a version (of th emobile app) was released, it was essentially out there forever. Some people would simply never upgrade until they absolutely had to. So the point of GraphQL is that you want to get away from thinking about versioning your API and cleanly upgrading because you probably can't. You can do versions but you don't have clean divisions. You'll mark a given field as "since v2.1". And fields that you ahve added can basically never be removed. The best you can do is make them return null or an error. So if you want to do versions it probably means you have control over the server and the client such that you can deploy them almost simultaneously. If so, GraphQL isn't really designed for your use case. If not, get out of the mindset that client and server versions can move in lockstep. I will say I think GraphQL made one mistake and that's baking in string values into the API. You can't change a field name without breaking your API. Same with enum values. Protocol buffers (including gRPC) instead went for numbering. The name is just a convenience for reading the IDL and data definitions and for code generation but it doesn't translate to the wire format at all. This can have downsides too but they're fairly minimal. For example, if you accidentally renumber your enums by inserting a new value in the middle, the whole thing can break (side note: always explicitly number your enum values in protobuf! That should've been the only way to do it). Another issue is that fragments seem like a good idea for code reuse but they can get really out of hand. It's so much easier just to add a field to an existing fragment. If that fragment is used in a bunch of places you may find yourself regenerating a ton of code. You will never be able to remove that field from the fragment once added. Disclaimer: Ex-Facebooker.