161–170 of 327 posts
I wish we had No-business solutions. Like you only have to write code and the business side of things is being solved for you by a script, just watch money flow into your account.
Closest things would be developing ransomware, defi contracts, and algo trading.
I wish we had No-business solutions. Like you only have to write code and the business side of things is being solved for you by a script, just watch money flow into your account.
Closest things would be developing ransomware, defi contracts, and algo trading.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People (especially the kind that hangs out in HN) dont seem to understand that there’s a vast ocean of fairly smart people, much smarter than the average (or even above average) programmer, who are unable to build what they can imagine because of the coding bottleneck. I know many, and it’s not for a lack of significant effort that they are not able to learn to code in a way that’s meaningful. I suppose there’s somet…
In life sciences the people are smarter than any developer but software is IT-captured so all they can work with is Excel. No code is meant for these people. Software developers will never deliver what life sciences needs without no code.
Can someone help me understand the no-code movement and what supposedly has changed in the last few years? I know Microsoft tried to allow non-developers to create apps without developers, and they have been trying for decades. But failed! They built an app that allowed you to drag and drop blocks, and they tried a visual query builder(not sure what the exact name was) for SQL. They added a workflow builder to ShareP…
It's a basic error of attribution.
We need complex systems, and we build them typically by text source, which is the most efficient way of coding a system (as we've found over the decades).
Because the source looks arcane to an untrained eye, people attribute the complexity to the form of the code: text source, and not to the nature of the systems being built, which have some natural level of complexity.
Hence we try to alter the source form in some visual "friendly" way and believe we've achieved further simplicity. Demos looks attractive by connecting 3-4 high-level blocks together that make milkshake, or whatever.
In real world projects, using these visual systems end up even more complex and much less flexible than text source. Rinse and repeat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It works best for prototyping and rapidly testing ideas. I joined a startup that didn't have any deep coding skills - but had a great idea and vision for a product. They had made a pretty decent prototype with Bubble and could quickly implement suggestions from the beta testers. When I joined I instantly suggested re-writing it in a "real" stack. But when I dived into it, there was a lot of built in features of Bubbl…
Thank you for a strikingly helpful testimonial. I’m skeptical of no- and low-code but based on your account, I’m now intrigued enough to give bubble a look.
I think the biggest problem with this approach is at some point, they necessarily reach a level of complexity that it takes the same amount of time to learn how to use their "no-code" tools than it does to just learn how to code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Declarative goal based development. You type in English what you want the application to do, Isn't that just code? I'm convinced that for sufficiently complex "no-code" solutions, you just end up with a poor mans programming language.
No, because programming wraps around the instruction-based model that processors use to execute programs. When you elevator pitch a product, you don't give them a list of instructions the product carries out, you tell them what the product does in broad terms. The theoretical next level of programming is being able to pitch your software to the computer, having it build it in real time, and playing around and tweakin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It works best for prototyping and rapidly testing ideas. I joined a startup that didn't have any deep coding skills - but had a great idea and vision for a product. They had made a pretty decent prototype with Bubble and could quickly implement suggestions from the beta testers. When I joined I instantly suggested re-writing it in a "real" stack. But when I dived into it, there was a lot of built in features of Bubbl…
People (especially the kind that hangs out in HN) dont seem to understand that there’s a vast ocean of fairly smart people, much smarter than the average (or even above average) programmer, who are unable to build what they can imagine because of the coding bottleneck. I know many, and it’s not for a lack of significant effort that they are not able to learn to code in a way that’s meaningful. I suppose there’s somet…
I wish we had No-business solutions. Like you only have to write code and the business side of things is being solved for you by a script, just watch money flow into your account.
"No business" software startups are kind of possible. If the software/product is useful, important, unique or cheap enough the business side would be trivial. An iphone equivalent for $50 doesn't need any marketing. A script that automatically optimizes any and every AWS setup to save money. A consistently profitable algorithm trading. Sales will be trivial, fundraising, etc.
In reality though, it's very hard to be that good on one axis. In a competitive game, you usually you need to perform across multiple areas. Great product and decent marketing. Great marketing & decent sales. etc.
This applies to Low/No code setups too. Maybe you can build twitter, airbnb or Tinder using Bubble. But, that'll mean that your product is very unlikely to be as good as those built using a more powerful toolset. The software itself can't be your competitive edge.
People have been competing with Amazon, without code, since viaweb. You're just never going to launch aws.