I haven’t used commanded, exmachina, or ash: - Tesla has a mode which can be used completely without macros, and I am increasingly encouraging that it be the o

I haven’t used commanded, exmachina, or ash: - Tesla has a mode which can be used completely without macros, and I am increasingly encouraging that it be the only way that it is used. So does the author (as of 2020): https://github.com/elixir-tesla/tesla/issues/367#issuecomment-610342739 https://github.com/elixir-tesla/tesla/issues/367#issuecommen... There is also `req` mentioned in a recent post as an alternative (it looks good, but I am still playing with it to see if it is a suitable replacement for Tesla in all cases). - Absinthe is something of a compiler itself, because it has to strictly define things the way that is specified in the GraphQL spec. You can now import an SDL file, but you still need to hook resolvers and middleware into it. Honestly, I don’t think that the schema definitions in JS/TS are much better for GraphQL in terms of readability. Being heavily macro-based means that there are sharp edges that are harder to work around when you want to add your own macros for code reuse purposes. That said, aside from the schema definition, Absinthe is entirely usable without macros. Within the schema definition, Absinthe isn’t making anything up, it’s using the same basic definitions that the GraphQL spec do, adapted for Elixir syntax. Exmachina didn’t interest me because I don’t think much of factory_bot (which used to be called factory_girl), as I saw it abused far more than used well (IMO, it’s impossible to use correctly). Ash…looks like an interesting experiment, but I don’t know that there’s a lot of pick-up with it compared to Phoenix. And I have yet to find a use for CQRS/ES, so there’s no reason for me to play with commanded. I certainly wouldn’t consider any of these three to be "major" players in Elixir. Tesla and Absinthe? Yes.