gqtx VS Next.js

My favorites are Pothos and gqtx. In terms of documentation and adoption Pothos definitely wins over gqtx. You might also want to check out the "I'm struggling to find proper Graphql Stack" Reddit thread.

By now you get a lot of typesafety without the need to write any types manually or having to generate them on the on the server by using https://github.com/sikanhe/gqtx

There are multiple ways available of constructing a graphql schema. Usually, you can break down those into "SDL" First and "Code" First. A simple example of a Code First approach is the programmatic graphql.js API using `new GraphQLObjectType`. You define your schema with code. In an SDL First approach, you write your schema in the GraphQL SDL (as text) and define a resolver map. You can find some examples over here: https://graphql.org/graphql-js/constructing-types/ A lot of tooling has emerged of those two methods of building GraphQL schemas and you usually have to choose whether you wanna stick to Code First or SDL First. Tools like gqtx (https://github.com/sikanhe/gqtx), giraphql (https://github.com/hayes/giraphql), and nexus (https://github.com/graphql-nexus/nexus) are built around the Code First approach and improve the developer experience over the programmatic API form graphql.js by providing a more type-safe API when utilizing TypeScript. They ultimately all do the same, with slightly (more or less opinionated) different APIs. On the other hand tooling for SDL has also evolved. graphql-tools provides a more advanced interface over how you define the resolvers map and a lot of utilities for constructing your schema from SDL/resolver map partials distributed across different files (https://www.graphql-tools.com/docs/generate-schema/). Together, with graphql-codegen resolver type generation (https://www.graphql-code-generator.com/docs/plugins/typescript-resolvers) you can bring this to the next level if you are working with TypeScript and generate fully typed resolvers from the GraphQL SDL. You have to find out for yourself which approach is best suited for you. I have been using both on different projects and they both have benefits and trade-offs. My opinion is mostly based on the TypeScript developer experience. Code First seems to be the better pick for me if you have lots of computed fields that cannot be mapped 1:1 to the data sources, where you would have to add a lot of type resolver mappings configuration for codegen. With SDL I like that I have the feeling that I can write the schema faster and less clumsy, and the SDL is immediately readable. On Code First you, however, can still generate an SDL file from the coding schema. Maybe there is a niche open for an approach that combines Code and SDL First approaches. We will have to see what the future brings. Here are some more articles/threads regarding the topic: https://www.prisma.io/blog/the-problems-of-schema-first-graphql-development-x1mn4cb0tyl3 https://www.reddit.com/r/graphql/comments/fpkx7a/codefirst\_vs\_schemafirst\_development/ https://blog.logrocket.com/code-first-vs-schema-first-development-graphql/ Also, note that most GraphQL server/transports do or should not care about the way you construct your schema. E.g. the apollo-server docs show you only an SDL first way of constructing the schema (https://www.apollographql.com/docs/apollo-server/schema/schema/), but it is also possible to provide a schema instance(https://www.apollographql.com/docs/apollo-server/api/apollo-server/#schema). apollo-server defaults to advocating creating a schema with SDL (by using an old graphql-tools@4 version under the hood).

Tools like gqtx (https://github.com/sikanhe/gqtx), giraphql (https://github.com/hayes/giraphql), and nexus (https://github.com/graphql-nexus/nexus) are built around the Code First approach and improve the developer experience over the programmatic API form graphql.js by providing a more type-safe API when utilizing TypeScript. They ultimately all do the same, with slightly (more or less opinionated) different APIs.

If I can give you an additional tip: Think twice whether you actually need apollo-server. All you need is a way of constructing a schema, which you can either do with the graphql.js programmatic API, graphql-tools (https://www.graphql-tools.com/docs/generate-schema/), or type-safe code first schema builders such as https://giraphql.com/ or https://github.com/sikanhe/gqtx

You will also have to figure out which schema generation flow suits you best. E.g. you can use the programatic API from graphql-js, makeExecutableSchema from graphql-tools https://www.graphql-tools.com/docs/generate-schema/ or code schema builders like https://github.com/sikanhe/gqtx or https://github.com/hayes/giraphql

https://github.com/vercel/next.js/discussions/27666 One of them said 'renaming folder to uppercase' might cause trouble. git might not recognize case-sensetive changes by default.

Next.js has long cemented itself as one of the front runners in the web framework world for JavaScript/TypeScript projects so we’re going to be using that. More specifically we’re going to be using V14 of Next.js which allows us to use some exciting new features like Server Actions and the App Router.

Web frameworks like Next.js will usually include this feature, but do check that they set the caching headers correctly!

Vite and Next.js are both top 5 modern development framework right now. They are both great depending on your use case so we’ll discuss 4 areas: Architecture, main features, developer experience and production readiness. After learning about these we’ll have a better idea of which one is best for your project.

> It’s important to be aware of what you are getting if you go with React, and what you are getting is a far cry from what a framework would offer, with all the corresponding pros and cons.

Would you like to elaborate on that?

In my experience, with something as great, size/ecosystem-wise as React, there will almost always be at least one "mainstream" package for whatever you might want to do with it, that integrates pretty well. Where a lot of things might come out of the box with a framework, with a library I often find myself just needing to install the "right" package, and from there it's pretty much the same.

For example, using https://angular.io/guide/i18n-overview or installing and using https://react.i18next.com/

Or something like https://angular.io/guide/form-validation out of the box, vs installing and using https://formik.org/

Or perhaps https://angular.io/guide/router vs https://reactrouter.com/en/main

Even adding something that's not there out of the box is pretty much the same, like https://primeng.org/ or https://primereact.org/

React will typically have more fragmentation and therefore also choice, but I don't see those two experiences as that different. Updates and version management/supply chain will inevitably be more of a mess with the library, admittedly.

Now, projects like Next https://nextjs.org/ exist and add what some might regard as the missing pieces and work well if you want something opinionated and with lots of features out of the box, but a lot of those features (like SSR) are actually pretty advanced and not always even necessary.

Next.js: For the website and the admin dashboard

Until the time of writing, there is no official example of how to enable runtime environmental variables in a Dockerized Next.js app, as utilizing unstable_noStore would only dynamically evaluate variables on the server (node.js runtime). There is also an interesting discussion regarding this topic on GitHub.

next.js is a very popular React framework. remix-adonisjs includes more functionality through the AdonisJS backend ecosystem, and should be easier to self-host and self-manage.

Cheryl Murphy is not only a dedicated full-stack web developer skilled in technologies like React, Next.js, and NestJs but also a community-driven professional who recently took on the role of volunteer project team lead at Web Dev Path. With a dual Bachelor's degree in Computing and Chemical Engineering from Monash University, Cheryl’s journey in tech is marked by a passion for building accessible solutions and a commitment to fostering community within tech.

For more information, check out this issue.