Hacker News Reader

Comment by stale2002 | Hacker News Reader

stale2002

It is still not really clear because you haven't really said yes or no.

But I am going to take a guess and say that you agree that:

it definitely requires more than "0 lines written by a backend developer" to do something like "taps into data that' only available from an external service etc."?

This is a yes or no question here. It should be pretty simple. Just say yes or no.

Since you keep misdirection though, I am going to assume that the answer is Yes, you agree with this original statement.

> Like I’m saying long live the backend job

So then you agree that it require more than "0 lines written by a backend developer" to do something like "taps into data that' only available from an external service etc.".

Awesome. You agree with this statement.

View on HN

I was talking about the example originally provided, that had no data tapping with external services. That was a detail added by the guy I was replying to. idk why he decided it’s relevant there. If you want my yes or no answer, on is there an out-of-a-box solution for querying external services, then probably not. There can be, for some use cases, but I never researched them. And that’s actually not a bad idea to have some generic kick-in lib for that. So here, you have it.

I hope you understand that my issue is with the person who’s currently very busy with coming up with the infinitely recursive graphql query.

> then probably not.

Alright, cool. So then you agree with that statement. Got it. Great. You are in agreement!

Furthermore, when you made this statement "Like I’m saying long live the backend job", it also is in agreement that there is definitely more than 0 backend lines required to solve something such as "if that ad-hoc GraphQL query requests extra fields", as that person originally stated.

I don't feel like I want to agree with that part, sorry. But I can admit I'm wrong if I had a counter-example relevant to that toy example.

I'm very confused on where you're going to with that.

> Because that SQL query will just magically write itself Do we have any disagreement on whenever we can have a full computer-generated query for the case where there're a few tables connected by FKs which is not worse than anything a human could write? If not, can I have some hint on why?

You do not agree with the idea that it definitely requires more than "0 lines written by a backend developer" for most graphql applications to do something like support "ad-hoc GraphQL query requests extra fields"

Really? You actually don't agree with that?

You think that graphql is setup in such a way for most services, that it add "extra fields" to a backend service endpoint, that was not returning those "extra fields" in it before, and that it would require zero lines of backend code in most applications to add those extra fields to a backend endpoint, that was not returning those extra fields before?

No, because then I won't get anything from this conversation.

Please, tell me, what else can I say to make you use a practical illustration of your position constructed on top of original example? I believe it's the only form of productive communication left that is possible in current context.

> No

So you think that graphql, for most applications, magically allows you to request an "extra fields" from a backend service, with zero backend work, that was not previously returning though fields? Really?

> use a practical illustration

I just told you the illustration. There is an additional field. That does not exist on a backend endpoint. And you think that graphql magically add that field, for most people, to the backend endpoint, with zero backend work?

That is a pretty simple and common practical example. Needing a extra field from a backend endpoint, that does not already exist in that backend service.

IE, to quote the original post, it would be to support "ad-hoc GraphQL query requests extra fields".

IE, an extra field that does not exist in the backend service.

That was the original post. And originally you disagreed with the original poster, when they claimed that such a thing would require more than "0 lines of code" on the backend, for most applications.

Ok, so you've failed to provide an example, I'll make you a big favour just this time.

> If you need to get user, then 5 of his posts, then 50 of comments for each post That was the original database structure, right? So we assume there're 3 tables, related by FK, right? Now let's take a "magic" tool. It wasn't specified, which one or what db is used, so I'll take "postgraphile" and assume it's a Postgres. No problem here, right? Now if I as an absolutely naive person, will run "postgraphile" and point it to my database schema, it will generate respective types and mutations, pretty much usable from the beginning. No problem here, right? Now let's say I add an extra field to db schema to any table. Oh, dear, do I need to write a code? Let's try to restart it. Boom, it works. Right? Need something more complex? Create a stored sql function (x: users|post|comment) => T that maps the data you need, restart a service and query your new field from your updated gql schema.

ffs, read before you write.

Alright.... now what if I were to tell you that most applications that use graphql are not using, or going to use, some singular magic tool, and therefore it does not get rid of all backend work, regarding adding new fields, for most applications?

So therefore, it is not applicable, for most applications, and the original comment was correct.

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.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com