Okay, let's spell it out. Your tool requires that you specify endpoints. Then call the ORM or make manual SQL queries. In the example, you have a Todo object.

Do you see the code right here?
```
endpoints.createTodoItem = async function(text) {
...
}
```
You've already missed the point of tools like Postgraphile et al when you propose tools like that in a discussion like this. You don't have to write endpoints or even GraphQL schemas at all. You literally just start the tool, passing in the database connection info, and start using it. That's it. That's all. That's what I meant by simple, not how many lines of code they required (which is not much of a benchmark). That's what I meant by apples and oranges. I'm sorry you saw that as an attack, but it's true. It is not just a matter of replacing GraphQL for RPC as you suggest. Or REST for RPC. Simplicity from the point of view of the user, not the server parsing code. Your server is effectively writing a data schema to be consumed by a client. These GraphQL tools write the schema for you.

No code at all (other than database setup) is required to get this working. Zero. https://www.graphile.org/postgraphile/usage-cli/

I hear you on the comment "Is your API meant to be used by yourself? Use Wildcard." However at that level, ANYTHING works. If you start with REST or GraphQL, you may not need it now, but if your project grows, you'll have to rewrite everything. Another minor nit: GraphQL does not require HTTP or even a network layer. GraphQL in and of itself is 100% transport-agnostic.

Sure you could auto-generate RPC endpoints from your database schema, but that requires a tool that does not yet exist, does it? And at that point, what advantage does it afford over GraphQL? It's not markedly more efficient. For that matter, if you wanted the most efficiency regarding RPC, why not use something like gRPC that uses protocol buffers for serialization? If that level of efficiency isn't necessary, then how can you criticize minimal protocol efficiency differences between RPC and GraphQL?

Then there's the issue of vendor lock-in. GraphQL is a spec, and a relatively simple on at that. Nothing more. Nothing less. For the most part different GraphQL backend implementations can be replaced with another vendor/implementation. REST is the same. Can the same be said of your RPC implementation? Could someone seamlessly replace it with another tool without changing any client code? Who are your competitors? (Not necessarily looking to outdo you, just occupying the same spec-level niche.)

As for VC funding, Hasura just got some. Prisma has some. Postgraphile is a one-couple shop with a simple Patreon. The REST libraries don't have VC funding to my knowledge, so that comment from you was largely unwarranted and frankly rude. But more to the point, lack of funding or a development team is not an effective point. What happens to the organization using your software if you get hit by a bus? Why should they take on that risk? Sure they can take over your code since it's open source, but if they wanted to go down that road, why wouldn't they just write their own code anyway? I'm not saying you have to be a major multinational corporation, but single points of failure are not selling points to most folks whether those single points of failure be technical or social.

Lack of redundancy is a hazard. Lack of choice is a hazard. I for one am glad so many healthy competitors exist in the auto-conversion of relational databases to GraphQL.

All the best of luck to you in your RPC endeavors. I'm sorry for being harsh, but you jumped into multiple threads promoting Wildcard without in my opinion understanding what you were comparing against. I hope you find an appropriate audience and user base for it. I fear however that this isn't it for the reasons I enumerated.