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

Microsoft's low-code strategy paints a target on UIPath and other RPA companies

infoq.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 198 posts

Re: Microsoft's low-code strategy paints a target on UIPath and other RPA companies

#181

Post by AtNightWeCode »

bsg75 wrote: post #179
AtNightWeCode wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You get Teams accounts with pretty much any MS thing. Teams still can't be used for chat in enterprise environments. It is laughable.

I'm using Teams in a 10,000 person company with employees and external collaborators. Its our primary chat tool, and its used regularly for presentation broadcasts of over 250 people. Is this Enterprise enough?

How do you get notifications from all tenants at the same time? How do you even check the other tenants when you are in a Teams meeting? I mean, the client disconnects from the meeting if you try to view other tenants. How can you see which channels across five tenants have new messages?

If you are a small company and use Teams internally. Fine, but it simply does not work in an enterprise environments.

Re: Microsoft's low-code strategy paints a target on UIPath and other RPA companies

#182

Post by ajcp »

bitcuration wrote: post #145
ajcp wrote: post #27

I 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…

The promise of universal API is overrated. It has some truth thatthe RPA brings the best bang for buck for mainframe etc., but in local on premise ecosystem the application API especially cross vendor is a hit and miss. The real promise is in the cloud where API becomes a mandate.

That's what Microsoft is forcing here: there is no more "on prem only", even with Windows.

Re: Microsoft's low-code strategy paints a target on UIPath and other RPA companies

#183

Post by hudgeon »

mgummelt wrote: post #143

It's interesting that the article's thesis is almost entirely about about PowerFX, but the 140 comments here so far don't even mention it.

Thanks. As the article's author (and first time writing something that hits HN) it's been interesting seeing which parts of the article have struck a nerve and which parts have gone through to the keeper.

Re: Microsoft's low-code strategy paints a target on UIPath and other RPA companies

#184

Post by ajcp »

mgummelt wrote: post #134
ajcp wrote: post #27

I 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…

Can you explain some of the terms you use a bit more? You say that Microsoft's strategy is not about enabling the development of "enterprise applications". Then you say it's about providing tools for "business process applications". What's the difference? Then you say it's not about providing tools for "applications" but rather "API integration and orchestration". Are you trying to say that the latter is about buildi…

I'm sorry, yes, re-reading it I do conflate some terms.

Enterprise applications are those that are built for, enable, and underpin enterprise sized concerns.

So for your financial department you want and enterprise application that owns, orchestrates, and audits the work of finance.

However most if not all business processes cannot exist solely within an enterprise application, so you want to give them "tools for application to the business process". That's probably more high-handed than it needs to be, but eh :D

So in this what I'm arguing is that MSFT here isn't trying to position Power Apps/Automate as a tool for developing enterprise applications, but rather high-grade capabilities (I'm remiss to say "enterprise grade" as people will then conflate that too) that allow the business to tie all ends of their business process together. The best way to do this is by giving everything outside of the enterprise application knowledge and reach to each other via API.

To your point, yes, this could require the business to build applications for their own processes, but these aren't enterprise applications, simply process specific applications.

Traditionally these were macro enabled Excel workbooks and Access apps that were squirrelled away deep in so many Network Drives, underpinning vital business process functions but wholly unknowable to leadership or those maintaining the enterprise application itself.

Re: Microsoft's low-code strategy paints a target on UIPath and other RPA companies

#185

Post by mgummelt »

WorldMaker wrote: post #180
mgummelt wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Low code just means using visual techniques to replace or augment code, so any WYSIWYG system, including VB or XAML, qualifies.

No, that's what "RAD" means. "Low Code" means systems like Excel where "formulas" aren't exactly seen as "code" and nearly everything can be wired up visually. Power Apps and Power BI are "Low Code". Access and Excel are "Low Code". VB was never "Low Code", it was "RAD". (And yes, today's WinForms and XAML editors in Visual Studio are quite "RAD", and exactly as "RAD" as VB <= 6 was, if not more so. VB.NET was never…

None of these terms have widely accepted precise definitions, but there are plenty of platforms considered "low-code" that still require quite a bit of traditional programming. Outsystems, for example.

Those that only offer formulas with no escape route to traditional programming, as you describe, are more commonly considered "no-code".

This distinction from wikipedia is pretty accurate:

"No-code platforms are accessible to any end-business user while low-code platforms require professional developers who can work within the platform's constraints."

Re: Microsoft's low-code strategy paints a target on UIPath and other RPA companies

#186

Post by mgummelt »

hudgeon wrote: post #183
mgummelt wrote: post #143

It's interesting that the article's thesis is almost entirely about about PowerFX, but the 140 comments here so far don't even mention it.

Thanks. As the article's author (and first time writing something that hits HN) it's been interesting seeing which parts of the article have struck a nerve and which parts have gone through to the keeper.

:)

While I have you here, I have to say I still don't understand the connection you're making between PowerFX and compatibility with existing deployment systems. I understand that a low-code platform that spits out an app in some sort of standard format, like source code or a docker image, would facilitate that integration, but where does PowerFX come in?

Re: Microsoft's low-code strategy paints a target on UIPath and other RPA companies

#187

Post by mgummelt »

ajcp wrote: post #184
mgummelt wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain some of the terms you use a bit more? You say that Microsoft's strategy is not about enabling the development of "enterprise applications". Then you say it's about providing tools for "business process applications". What's the difference? Then you say it's not about providing tools for "applications" but rather "API integration and orchestration". Are you trying to say that the latter is about buildi…

I'm sorry, yes, re-reading it I do conflate some terms. Enterprise applications are those that are built for, enable, and underpin enterprise sized concerns. So for your financial department you want and enterprise application that owns, orchestrates, and audits the work of finance. However most if not all business processes cannot exist solely within an enterprise application, so you want to give them "tools for app…

Ah, I see.

I wouldn't say API orchestration is the "new RPA", though. It's rather the "old BPM", and "current IPaaS". That is, we already have tools for API orchestration. It's nothing new. RPA is something different entirely.

And it's benefit isn't just for automating legacy systems. Automating the UI they're already familiar with is a much more intuitive experience for lots of people than going out of band to integrate with APIs.

Re: Microsoft's low-code strategy paints a target on UIPath and other RPA companies

#188

Post by hudgeon »

mgummelt wrote: post #186
hudgeon wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. As the article's author (and first time writing something that hits HN) it's been interesting seeing which parts of the article have struck a nerve and which parts have gone through to the keeper.

:) While I have you here, I have to say I still don't understand the connection you're making between PowerFX and compatibility with existing deployment systems. I understand that a low-code platform that spits out an app in some sort of standard format, like source code or a docker image, would facilitate that integration, but where does PowerFX come in?

PowerFX is MS's name for the standard code format. I believe their ultimate goal is that:

- business users build apps using a graphical low-code interface,

- these then convert to PowerFX source code that goes into the enterprise's source control system.

- The enterprise IT team tests the code, re-writes key components and deploys.

- And these changes are then reflected back into the low-code app development environment.

This allows business users to contribute domain expertise and IT to maintain their quality and governance role.

Needless to say, this is non-trivial from a tech perspective but, in my view, is a better approach than an enterprise having a separate deployment and governance framework for low-code/RPA apps than for their other custom applications developed in Java/C++ etc.

Re: Microsoft's low-code strategy paints a target on UIPath and other RPA companies

#189

Post by mgummelt »

hudgeon wrote: post #188
mgummelt wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

:) While I have you here, I have to say I still don't understand the connection you're making between PowerFX and compatibility with existing deployment systems. I understand that a low-code platform that spits out an app in some sort of standard format, like source code or a docker image, would facilitate that integration, but where does PowerFX come in?

PowerFX is MS's name for the standard code format. I believe their ultimate goal is that: - business users build apps using a graphical low-code interface, - these then convert to PowerFX source code that goes into the enterprise's source control system. - The enterprise IT team tests the code, re-writes key components and deploys. - And these changes are then reflected back into the low-code app development environm…

Where are you seeing that it's a standard code format? I've skimmed this: https://powerapps.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/what-is-microsoft... and it seems that it's just a simple expression language, not a standard format that an entire PowerApps app would compile down to.

Re: Microsoft's low-code strategy paints a target on UIPath and other RPA companies

#190

Post by hudgeon »

mgummelt wrote: post #189
hudgeon wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PowerFX is MS's name for the standard code format. I believe their ultimate goal is that: - business users build apps using a graphical low-code interface, - these then convert to PowerFX source code that goes into the enterprise's source control system. - The enterprise IT team tests the code, re-writes key components and deploys. - And these changes are then reflected back into the low-code app development environm…

Where are you seeing that it's a standard code format? I've skimmed this: https://powerapps.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/what-is-microsoft... and it seems that it's just a simple expression language, not a standard format that an entire PowerApps app would compile down to.

Hmmm. Good question. I was using standard format to mean two things:

1. Common code format across the Power platform, and

2. the branding MS was using to describe everything that would be put under source control.

I have some doubts about whether the second point is true.

This article (https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/power-platform/power-fx/ove...) discuss PowerFX stored as YAML files under source control.

And this article which predates the PowerFX announcement (https://powerapps.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/source-code-files...) discusses UI YAML files under source control.

But nowhere does it say that they are branding the UI YAML files under the PowerFX moniker.

Post reply on HN