41–50 of 208 posts
I feel low code tools can only really disrupt development once they solve the problem of requirements gathering from customers/ end users and also formally describe change management in low-code as well. As long as there is ambiguity in requirements - code or low code makes no difference.
Building the same thing from scratch would have taken me two weeks or so.
I am saying this as someone whose main job is providing a CMS, so I am familiar with having to create a simple enough interface for non-technical users to use my CMS.
Hats off to Bubble.io for achieving such a usable interface for being able to knock up an app this quickly.
At the same time it is clear that some actions which would be painfully simple to perform in code take a lot of clever thinking and hacks to convince bubble.io to do it.
It also won't scale and if it breaks for no reason, it'll be nearly impossible to fix it.
If it doesn't provide a certain bit of functionality, you have to add your own CSS / JS and that's where it becomes clear that my extensive knowledge in web development contributed to my ability to use this no-code tool a lot.
Ultimately, I think a no-code tool can be a great way to enable programmers to build things quickly, but I think the ability to think like a programmer is still worth learning.
I'd be surprised if these tools could replace anyone building complex applications in the near future.
On a shorter term, the disruption they can provide is similar to the one involving cryptocurrencies and blockchain: a lot of hype, grift, and few real applications.
My main issue with low-code/no-code is that it attempts to solve the complexity problem, without understanding what "complexity" is. Code is perceived to be complex, but when you look deeply into what people mean when they say that, it's almost entirely a social perception. They see these weird characters and it looks like gibberish and they assume that the people who understand this gibberish are somehow on another…
So it might be that node based programming is a good way to allow non-devs to interact with parts of an otherwise code based solution, inside niches. Examples that come to mind are eCommerce shopping rules. They can be complex, and really arbitrary, and in many ways having a developer implement them is really inefficient. Giving a node based pipeline editor for shopping cart rules would be a boon for power-users and take time off the dev's hands to focus on implementing the surrounding ecommerce solution, something you definitely don't want to be writing in a graphical editor.
My main issue with low-code/no-code is that it attempts to solve the complexity problem, without understanding what "complexity" is. Code is perceived to be complex, but when you look deeply into what people mean when they say that, it's almost entirely a social perception. They see these weird characters and it looks like gibberish and they assume that the people who understand this gibberish are somehow on another…
To expand on this, you will have to house the complexity somewhere. For low/no code tools, it's swept under the rug, or rather, under layers of abstraction. I don't think it's a good idea (in a disruptive-amount of cases) to deviate from the simplicity of straight forward code. We are growing closer and eventually will realize as a society that programming doesn't have to be hard or scary. I'm sure that the futuristi…
I feel like we actively discourage people from having an understanding of technology for fear that they will understand it and complain about it and/or be in a better position to judge the quality of alternatives to our products. As a result, it seems like more people understood basic computer operation and architecture 30 years ago than they do today, but maybe I'm in a weird bubble. I'd think with the opportunities for the far more opaque operations and algorithms that deep learning has given us, people will understand even less about computers in the future.
1. Insufficient skill to make such automation work
2. A large enough number of people are capable of making this happen, and after that, everyone else('s career) dies.
I for one welcome our new overlords.
My main issue with low-code/no-code is that it attempts to solve the complexity problem, without understanding what "complexity" is. Code is perceived to be complex, but when you look deeply into what people mean when they say that, it's almost entirely a social perception. They see these weird characters and it looks like gibberish and they assume that the people who understand this gibberish are somehow on another…
> They see these weird characters and it looks like gibberish and they assume that the people who understand this gibberish are somehow on another level of intelligence. Honestly: if you come to such a (dubious) conclusion, the conclusion is actually likely true (with respect to you), because if you were smarter, you would sooner or later realize the mistake in this flow of thoughts.