If Microsoft were serious about 'low code' we would be looking at Visual Basic 7.
Visual Basic was never "Low Code". It certainly was "RAD" ("Rapid Application Development"), but VB was always a heavier weight language than people thought it was. There was a Visual Basic 7. The current compiler for "Visual Basic 2019" is version number 16.0 and the version numbers carry directly through. The VB team moved on, even if if so many of the users didn't. You can get pretty RAD with WinForms (or WPF) on…
Microsoft's low-code strategy paints a target on UIPath and other RPA companies
141–150 of 198 posts
Re: Microsoft's low-code strategy paints a target on UIPath and other RPA companies
#142For starters, my company's business people are not curious. This is not necessarily bad, but curiosity is a powerful accelerator for programming and automation tools. They weren't impressed nor motivated to adopt and extend the example flows. In the end, I had programmers creating flows for business people to use, and it was frustrating for the programmers and an uncertain black box for the business people. We even managed to create custom connectors to simplify a few flows. It failed and we gave up.
Regarding the specific tools of the "Power Platform", Power Automate has a horrible UI. It's slow, clunky and buggy. Sometimes you try to save your flow and it will give you a weird error. Then you refresh the page, the flow remains exactly the same, but now saving works. It's messy.
Power Apps has a bizarre billing/licensing issue. The idea behind the product is appealing, but when you start using it, it's a weird mix of a no-code design app with some legacy Microsoft Dynamics app. User management is confusing and tied to Dynamics. "External" users will cost you a lot more in licensing. You keep bouncing between old Dynamics pages and newer Power Apps ones. Even if you want to pay for the highest tier, it's incredibly difficult to find out how to do it. And if you don't pay for the highest tier upfront, Microsoft will create limitations for you on every corner (like accessing a database or using a given widget).
I didn't have any motivation left to try Power BI, but one of my interns told me that a _viewer_ of my dashboards would also need a license to have access to it.
I won't revisit these tools anytime soon.
Re: Microsoft's low-code strategy paints a target on UIPath and other RPA companies
#143Re: Microsoft's low-code strategy paints a target on UIPath and other RPA companies
#144I've tried to buy into this philosophy and ecosystem in my company (I'm the CTO). We have a lot of inneficient processes and I thought that by creating a few flows as an example and giving some training to business people they would become automators. I was wrong. For starters, my company's business people are not curious. This is not necessarily bad, but curiosity is a powerful accelerator for programming and automa…
Re: Microsoft's low-code strategy paints a target on UIPath and other RPA companies
#145I think this article misses the mark of the actual move Microsoft is making here, but I think MSFT also gets their own messaging wrong. Microsoft's "Low-Code" strategy is not RPA, nor is it enabling the development of enterprise applications with "Low Code" development tools. RPA is already a legacy solution in it's current form, and increasingly only useful with regards to mainframe emulators and applications that d…
Re: Microsoft's low-code strategy paints a target on UIPath and other RPA companies
#146I've tried to buy into this philosophy and ecosystem in my company (I'm the CTO). We have a lot of inneficient processes and I thought that by creating a few flows as an example and giving some training to business people they would become automators. I was wrong. For starters, my company's business people are not curious. This is not necessarily bad, but curiosity is a powerful accelerator for programming and automa…
Were you creating flows in Power Automate or something else?
Re: Microsoft's low-code strategy paints a target on UIPath and other RPA companies
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
Visual Basic was never "Low Code". It certainly was "RAD" ("Rapid Application Development"), but VB was always a heavier weight language than people thought it was. There was a Visual Basic 7. The current compiler for "Visual Basic 2019" is version number 16.0 and the version numbers carry directly through. The VB team moved on, even if if so many of the users didn't. You can get pretty RAD with WinForms (or WPF) on…
Visual Basic is an overloaded term that can refer to both the language and the RAD IDE. The IDE was certainly low-code.
Re: Microsoft's low-code strategy paints a target on UIPath and other RPA companies
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>It’s ugly and buggy but gets a job done. This works for as long as they don’t hit a technical limitation then call devs like myself in to replace it. Or more likely they leave the company, it breaks and no one knows how it worked, how it was suppose to work, or anything about it so they need to call in someone either from Internal IT, or and outside consultant to figure out what broke, and how to fix it...
Yes this happens...sometimes. And, other times, (as reflected in comments ITT), there are many cases where a low-code solution built by a non-dev have brought huge benefit. (I've seen this myself - see below - MS Access apps that saved hours and hours of work, but which IT had not time to look at.) I've also seen the sentiment in your comment lead to an outright ban by IT dept. of all low-code tools, for no other rea…
it is ironic that you bring up Access because that is one the tools I despise the most, our helpdesk is routinely indated with requests from people that pass around Access Databases with custom data links either to Excel files, or ODBC connections that are not standard but rather customized by the "power user" that created the database, then they share the database and it generates all kind of errors that the non-power user can not fix so IT gets roped into spending our time fixing not only users system to establish the needed data links, but also moving things around and reconstructing the databases so it actually works in way that is shareable
The IT Dept has also spent countless hours correcting Access Database connection issues, and schema issues when we move servers, upgrade platforms, or do anything on the prod system that end up breaking the Excel and Access "Low Code Applications" that consume data from these services because the end user lacks the technical ability to fix them often because they were created years ago by people that have left the company or retired.
Re: Microsoft's low-code strategy paints a target on UIPath and other RPA companies
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a fellow SWE who's been in the RPA space for a few years now, I'll offer an alternative perspective. Traditional RPA is here to stay, and only getting bigger. By "traditional" I mean screen-scraping and click bots. It's not only for legacy apps. It also addresses two development pain points that will never go away: (1) complexity and (2) missing features. On (1), I've worked with companies whose APIs are so convol…
What do you mean "implement this with a service account"? Aren't service accounts just a way to authenticate to APIs?
Without a dedicated account your RPA bot needs to essentially impersonate a human or let the human login first and then drive the dashboard until the bot completes and the human can resume using their desktop seat. Very inconvenient for the human, and problematic for logging of who's really doing what.
Re: Microsoft's low-code strategy paints a target on UIPath and other RPA companies
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bot Framework is horrible. It's the most ridiculous IM platform I've built anything for, and I've covered a good bit of the spectrum. They really need to expose a full-featured API for Teams, something at least as powerful as what you used to be able to do with the UCMA SDK for Lync/SfB. I've given up on anything ever getting exposed through Graph API in a timely manner. It took two or three years before you could ge…
Bot Framework was a good idea: one framework to write a bot for multiple IM platforms at once. But of course it immediately suffered the exact problems you would expect: lowest common denominator features, older target platforms falling into disrepair, new platforms never getting official support, etc. Using Bot Framework to write just for a Teams bot is broken before you start. Using it to support both your Teams an…
The thing is, until very recently, Bot Framework was the only game in town for Teams.
Doing something as simple as sending an outbound message to a user from a bot, if the user didn't initiate the conversation, was stupidly convoluted.
There's some stuff added to Graph API for sending messages now, but on the whole, the development experience is very, very far from what I would expect from Microsoft.
There's still no good way to sign in on behalf of a user to Teams, which makes writing load-testing tools to test a Teams bot a PITA - you can use Direct-Line, but then it isn't really testing how the bot would act against Teams...