SQL isn't "a language". It's a family of incompatible dialects. The ISO standard costs hundreds of dollars, and nobody follows it anyway.
Or if there's a specific proprietary dialect we're supposed to compare GraphQL to, then name it. I've used a lot of them, and they all suck in some way or other. I bet we can come up with lots of awful issues with any of them.
Is this cheating? I feel like I'm attacking someone with both hands tied behind their back:
- All GraphQL implementations agree on how many bits an integer has
- All GraphQL implementations agree that null is not a string
- All GraphQL implementations agree that strings are UTF-8 (and that "UTF-8" means actual UTF-8 and not some BMP-only subset)
Interfaces with gratuitous incompatibilities are never good because of them. That's simply a method of vendor lock-in. "Best Viewed With ___" badges weren't indicators of technical quality, either.
Or if there's a specific proprietary dialect we're supposed to compare GraphQL to, then name it. I've used a lot of them, and they all suck in some way or other. I bet we can come up with lots of awful issues with any of them.
Is this cheating? I feel like I'm attacking someone with both hands tied behind their back:
- All GraphQL implementations agree on how many bits an integer has
- All GraphQL implementations agree that null is not a string
- All GraphQL implementations agree that strings are UTF-8 (and that "UTF-8" means actual UTF-8 and not some BMP-only subset)
Interfaces with gratuitous incompatibilities are never good because of them. That's simply a method of vendor lock-in. "Best Viewed With ___" badges weren't indicators of technical quality, either.