It seems to be a replacement for an ORM that then needs an ORM. So it’s a replacement for passing JSON objects around except it’s just doing that with a dash of esotericism.
What can graphql do that an ORM can’t?
It seems to be a replacement for an ORM that then needs an ORM. So it’s a replacement for passing JSON objects around except it’s just doing that with a dash of esotericism.
What can graphql do that an ORM can’t?
You can then implement a server which, given a GraphQL query, turns it into the data that's expected. The client doesn't care how you implement that. You can write raw SQL, use an ORM, whatever. Since people don't want to reinvent the wheel they use libraries like Apollo Server, but again you can do it all by hand if you really want to.
Have you actually used GraphQL? This is all explained within the first 15 minutes of any GraphQL tutorial.
Obligatory note: this really is just supposed to be REST. GraphQL seems to be the final expression of throwing in the towel on REST's original capabilities.
As such it's not clear of it's a step forward (REST as it should be) or a step back (let's just use a crippled SQL and ship)
And did you really link me to a meme you made specifically for this conversation?