> you can make all the same claims for REST

That's why I mentioned OpenAPIs, which you certainly can't make the same claims about. I have never had a problem with an OpenAPI, it's almost like a litmus test of web developer competence how simple it is.

> But instead of a complex mishmash if positional and named parameters, it has a super simple query structure.

Have you ever used an OpenAPI or an OpenAPI client? I seriously implore you to look at ShipHero's GraphQL documentation and look at any OpenAPI docs and pretend like GraphQL is simpler.

But if you've ever used an OpenAPI client, you know this is just a problem in theory, not in practice. I have never accidentally passed a parameter to the body, path, query or headers when it should've been elsewhere.

The problem is non-existent, especially since most people don't write OpenAPI requests from scratch.. you can just throw the document anywhere and you will have some easier way to make requests.

And even if that's really a problem, almost every OpenAPI doc UI I've seen has an option to show you the cURL and substitutes in parameters from the UI. You could just fill out the UI and copy the cURL request.

> When you create a stack of REST APIs, you’re creating a DSL. But it’s a DSL with arbitrary and frequently undocumented relationships between objects, no type safety, and masses of hidden complexity.

I'm beginning to think this entire comment is a strawman: my argument is that a graph-based OpenAPI would have been better than GraphQL. Any REST API can be an OpenAPI. You are comparing apples to oranges.

I am comparing a RESTful Graph based data access API (like JSON:API) to GraphQL.

You are taking what sounds like the kind of REST API you'd find in a w3schools tutorial and comparing it to GraphQL.

> GraphQL is simple. If you don’t think it’s simple, you don’t understand it.

That many developers find GraphQL difficult to understand is literally a testament to its complexity. This statement contradicts itself unless you believe I'm the only developer on the internet with this opinion, which I have a hard time believing given this entire comment is filled with strawman arguments you clearly use against others who dislike GraphQL.

> The clients are unnecessary. You can get ridiculously complex clients for REST, too. But you can also use GraphQL just using fetch().

Types are unnecessary. You can get ridiculously complex with strictly typed languages, too. But you can also just type everything dynamically and go crazy if the type system in my wacky language annoys you.

> REST gives you everything, even if you don’t want it

That's completely up to the REST API. I've written several that disagree with you. I've literally written RESTful Graph based data access APIs that don't do this. Multiple. At tech startups.

> GraphQL requires you to request what you want using a minimal query language.

So it requires complexity to enforce low bandwidth, got it. There is definitely no other way to lower bandwidth than enforcing complexity.

Usually I just use ABAC. You get the fields you can see. You can select a minimal list if you want. You don't have to type out 32 field names if you need them all.

I sometimes wish GraphQL just took a chapter from SQLs book. What you described here is not a feature.

> GraphQL also lets you perform multiple queries in parallel, on the server, which REST can’t easily do.

Ironically, that is up to the GraphQL implementation. ShipHero's does not support this, and requires N+1 queries in many common cases. I suspect that's not uncommon with GraphQL APIs, but I have no evidence for this.

But my suspicion is based on the fact that rigging up a GraphQL API implementation is a daunting enough task on its own, and multiple queries feels like it would be an after-thought to someone doing a quick-and-dirty setup. Which is how most people set up bleeding-edge inf...