# part 2
It feels that there are the following type of people zealously hating gql:
1. Those who for some reason don’t understand it. That’s obvious from the scope of problems they highlight. The problem of resolving the data is not really that hard. If someone’s complaining only about it, it can only mean that got stuck at the fist step: making it work. Those who got it work, talk about other problems, that are real: caching, for example. Or lack of URI and troubles with supporting linked data, structuring mutations, etc, etc.. Here, in other threads some people are saying it’s a FAANG only thing and big problems. Others say it’s a small-project scale and solution only to you problems. Make up your mind.
2. Those who would feel comfortable with backend if thinga stayed at cgi/Perl level. I actually have nothing against it.
> The problem of resolving the data is not really that hard.
Says the person who also wrote this: "Yea, it’s much harder to design good resolvers, queries and limits".
> Those who got it work, talk about other problems, that are real: caching, for example. Or lack of URI and troubles with supporting linked data, structuring mutations, etc, etc.
If you’ll keep cherry-picking this conversation will stop be entertaining. So yes, people who know what they’re talking about are discussing different set of problems that resolving data in general. I’m more and more convinced that you are not. And don’t twist my word, btw. I have nothing but respect for good old days guys and they are far from incompetent. But I f you think you belong to 2nd category, I want to point out that you can easily belong to both.