...by someone who didn’t really deeply understand the HTTP specification, or at least couldn’t really articulate why they needed a new tool that used less...

Thousand yard stare at SOAP

Yo dawg, I heard you like XML over HTTP so I put XML in HTTP in your XML over HTTP.

So many technologies doing crap that plain old HTTP already does:

• name a resource: URL
• discover verbs for a resource: OPTIONS
• execute a verb: the actual request
• define a response type: Headers

well, there’s a schema description built into compliant graphql apis and a tool called graphiql that consumes that and provides exactly that api explorer that you’re looking for. many graphql backend frameworks embed graphiql

https://docs.github.com/en/graphql/overview/explorer

So did you ever actually use it? Or did you just read docs about it.

If Json wasn't status quo, coming from a language that's status quo, all these comments could be reversed against it.

And well, if you're not using JavaScript, Json is not that great anyways.

What I like about graphql that Json over rest doesn't have it: fragments and types.

On types: have you ever got across bad swagger documentation? Like a parameter called something unclear like usertype, with no explanation of what it is or examples, ? Oh yeah, it's a string. Very helpful. Well in graph ql, that parameter is likely to be called userType, which if you go into the schema file, you'll likely see it's an enum and you'll also see all possible values. If your backend developer is half decent you'll also get comments right there next to the enum. You don't need a tool to spit out a html page that you'll host somewher. Most reasonable information can be part of the schema file, and that's it.

All that said, everyone now is familiar with Json and rest. Because of that, small projects are better doing it. But that supremacy will eventually end. And for large projects,, specially with static types, graphql makes some things much easier, like types, fragments and unions.