Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

App Maker, Google’s low-code tool for building business apps, comes out of beta

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 159 posts

Re: App Maker, Google’s low-code tool for building business apps, comes out of beta

#71

Post by lostcolony »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #58
lostcolony wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm one of the team that was hired to take the Excel app that one overdue-to-retire person had spent 20+ years developing (without documentation, and inserting every miscellaneous feature he felt was desirable, regardless of actual need, and which, of course, he wanted all of to be kept) for the entire company's metrics and reporting, and turn it into something that could actually be understood by anyone else, with p…

Yes, we stand on the shoulders of giants :)

Giant ~something~, certainly

Re: App Maker, Google’s low-code tool for building business apps, comes out of beta

#72

Post by fauigerzigerk »

prepend wrote: post #51
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but there are many people who can handle consistent logic but are not familiar with all the technical detail required for general purpose software development. There is a lot of complexity that is completely unrelated to the core logic of a solution to a particular problem.

I have not experienced this. Every 4GL/5GL/wysiwyg in my decades ended up with some specialized user type learning the syntax of dragging blocks or whatnot. I’ve seen lots of demos (and bought lots) of reporting or automation tools intended for the “CEO” to make their own ad how reports only to have that mean that consultants are hired or someone else do it. At the end of the day, the hard part for many people is the…

>I have not experienced this. Every 4GL/5GL/wysiwyg in my decades ended up with some specialized user type learning the syntax of dragging blocks or whatnot.

There have always been power user types in small and large organisations who are not developers but can create simple solutions, mostly using point and click with some expressions, macros or SQL added in. The ones I have personally met have used dBase, Excel or Access (one of them a non-tech CEO).

Of course they had to learn how to do it. But it didn't take them years to learn nor is keeping the skills fresh a full-time commitment.

I think this is largely a disagreement over definitions. Can something that doesn't involve writing loops and mutating variables be called "building business apps"? I would say yes, but I understand how reasonable people could disagree on that.

Re: App Maker, Google’s low-code tool for building business apps, comes out of beta

#73

Post by fauigerzigerk »

oblio wrote: post #44
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but there are many people who can handle consistent logic but are not familiar with all the technical detail required for general purpose software development. There is a lot of complexity that is completely unrelated to the core logic of a solution to a particular problem.

Is there any of these higher level languages that doesn't add its own accidental complexity? (essential complexity being the one included in the core logic of the solution to the problem). They usually have their own jargon/terminology and concepts to learn. So they just move the goal posts...

No, I don't think it's just moving the goal posts if the difference between learning one or the other tool is measured in years.

But I think it depends on what sorts of problems and solutions we're talking about. I don't believe for a second that all types of software can be created with this sort of end-user oriented wysiwyg + expressions tool.

Re: App Maker, Google’s low-code tool for building business apps, comes out of beta

#75

Post by blisterpeanuts »

pavlov wrote: post #33

I suspect Google App Maker will end up effectively abandoned like Google Web Designer: https://www.google.com/webdesigner/ Google dabbles in these tools, but the business case isn't really there. If anything Web Designer should have been more likely to succeed because it had a direct application — designing rich ads — that would benefit Google's primary moneymaker.

App Maker requires G Suite, which is a paid subscription service ($10/user/month for the "best deal" business tier).

Probably they're hoping to grow their G Suite subscription base by offering some more value added services like App Maker.

It's not a bad idea. Build your apps quickly and simply using App Maker, and you are then dependent on G Suite.

However I do agree that Google has a disappointing track record when it comes to end-of-life-ing interesting products like Web Designer.

It's hard to make a business case these days that we should adopt a particular tool that magically builds web sites or marries Java to web, or other such experiments, when it might be orphaned 2-3 years from now. Even if the Goog keeps it on life support, you don't want to be using a platform that has been abandoned by a critical mass of devs -- fewer resources out there to support it, answer questions etc.

We'll take a wait-and-see stance on this one.

Re: App Maker, Google’s low-code tool for building business apps, comes out of beta

#76

Post by ako »

dirktheman wrote: post #43
dgudkov wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's all relative. One can argue that "true" programmers program in Assembly and languages like Python or Javascript are just high-level abstractions over Assembly. SQL is another type of abstraction which was originally intended to be used by business users (hence the English-like syntax) yet developers are happy with it now. There is a need for wide variety of programming tools, ranging from very low-level to very…

For a good programmer, the language is just a tool to make what you've just thought out. To me, programming isn't about how to code, but about what to code. What makes somebody a good programmer is the thought process before a single character of code is written. Someone who assembles an Ikea cabinet isn't necessarily a master furniture maker (altough they could be!). If all you need is a cheap, cookie cutter coffee…

Most apps, especially data entry apps, are like ikea furniture. You don't need a master furniture maker.

Re: App Maker, Google’s low-code tool for building business apps, comes out of beta

#77

Post by blisterpeanuts »

shawn wrote: post #65
zenovision wrote: post #56

In the past years Google has deprecated more than 100 services, so I will never trust them to build any software using their proprietary stack.

Does it matter that App Maker is only available with a G Suite business subscription? I'm skeptical too, but at least this is (indirectly) a paid product.

That's the key point. It's going to be a revenue producer from Day One.

The question is, how long will G Suite itself last (as a paid service)? If AMZN or MSFT come out with equivalent services for free or very cheap, GOOG may reciprocate, and bang, no more revenue.

Re: App Maker, Google’s low-code tool for building business apps, comes out of beta

#78

Post by jt2190 »

dgudkov wrote: post #38
bigato wrote: post #17

After more than two decades in the industry, you start getting cynical towards these kind of "programming for non-programmers" tools. All of them are trying to abstract away the complex parts of the programming problem. Guess what, it doesn't matter how many layers of abstraction you pile up, you never abstract away the need for consistent logic. You end up requiring the same kind of people that have the brain skills…

It's all relative. One can argue that "true" programmers program in Assembly and languages like Python or Javascript are just high-level abstractions over Assembly. SQL is another type of abstraction which was originally intended to be used by business users (hence the English-like syntax) yet developers are happy with it now. There is a need for wide variety of programming tools, ranging from very low-level to very…

You're pointing out that programming languages are relative to the level of abstraction needed but not the quality of the programmer. So true! Programming is programming.

bigato, on the other hand, is pointing out that the brains are relative, i.e. regardless of the programming language, you still need a programmer's brain using it to be successful.

Re: App Maker, Google’s low-code tool for building business apps, comes out of beta

#79

Post by brlewis »

projectramo wrote: post #59
Pamar wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, I am the guy that came in a few years later and had to reimplement a bunch of custom (undocumented) Lotus Notes applications in order to move actual documents to a proper document management system (with access profiles and searchability) integrating the apps in an intranet portal, allow them to talk with other applications and finally put everything under SSO. Thank you for the experience.

I have also found that when I enter a new workplace, everything done before me was a mess of unwieldy, poorly documented and unstructured code. Worse it uses an old, archaic platform that is long overdue for a complete overhaul. Then when I arrive, I make everything logical, nice, structured and proper. After I leave, once again the place falls prey to disorganized minds who take my work and mess it up for flashy new…

s/workforce/workplace/

Otherwise perfect. :-D

Re: App Maker, Google’s low-code tool for building business apps, comes out of beta

#80

Post by jonnydubowsky »

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #75
pavlov wrote: post #33

I suspect Google App Maker will end up effectively abandoned like Google Web Designer: https://www.google.com/webdesigner/ Google dabbles in these tools, but the business case isn't really there. If anything Web Designer should have been more likely to succeed because it had a direct application — designing rich ads — that would benefit Google's primary moneymaker.

App Maker requires G Suite, which is a paid subscription service ($10/user/month for the "best deal" business tier). Probably they're hoping to grow their G Suite subscription base by offering some more value added services like App Maker. It's not a bad idea. Build your apps quickly and simply using App Maker, and you are then dependent on G Suite. However I do agree that Google has a disappointing track record when…

Good point. Does that change the economics model to one closer to Netflix, where the goal of the development costs is to hook more people into the subscription?
Post reply on HN