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

Rails is better low code than low code

radanskoric.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 249 posts

Re: Rails is better low code than low code

#151

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

stoat_meniscus wrote: post #90
gonzo41 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything you just said also applies to all ETL and workflow management tools as well. There's a level of complexity that's never going away.

Yes, Informatica was the one that came to mind. We inherited some Informatica ETL workflows once at work. Nice at first glance with good logging, but peel back the surface a little bit and it was a dizzying level of hidden complexity. Some of this was business logic which was inherently complex, but it was so deeply buried in menus and abstractions with no easy diffing or version control... Like the comment starter m…

They're designed for purchasing departments and VPs, unfortunately.

Re: Rails is better low code than low code

#152

Post by jve »

twen_ty wrote: post #149

What is low code anyway in 2024? For example, is AWS Amplify or Firebase low code?

Power Apps https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/power-platform/products/powe...

Uses excel and excel like formulas for stuff. Not bad for power users that can/want hack their app together.

Re: Rails is better low code than low code

#153

Post by jokethrowaway »

No Code > Low Code > Large framework that does everything > Small framework > Library > No library

Every item is faster to implement and less configurable than the next one.

Until the set of features you need to implement fit your current choosen setup, you're good. If you need to dig deeper, you'll be in pain.

You may get some relief with some hooks.

I've experienced my fair share of pain with RoR, it's definitely not a magic bullet.

I was amazed at things like Rails Admin a decade ago but overall it does way too much for what I typically need.My sweet spot is a low level server, eg. node.js + express (actually, rust + axum these days).

Re: Rails is better low code than low code

#154

Post by dagw »

devjab wrote: post #127
ahodgkinson wrote: post #66

Low code initially works quite well until you hit the limits of the low-code framework. If you just need a throw-away proof of concept, or a personal utility, or the like, low-code solutions can be quite efficient. However, implementing anything significant that's expected to be extended and improved, particularly when there are users that request changes, improvements and new features, low-code "is like climbing a t…

I’ve spend a few decades in non-tech enterprise including 7 years in the public sector, and I’ve never seen a low-code solution work at all. Even extremely simple automation flows require at least some degree of software engineering. Looping isn’t intuitive at all, he’ll even conditions aren’t. What has completely changed the field is LLMs. We now have employees of every sort building small Python scripts which actua…

I’ve never seen a low-code solution work at all.

I've worked quite a bit in civil engineering and GIS, and most places I've worked at have made very good use of a 'low-code' tool called FME for automation and ETL tasks. I even reach for it myself for many tasks, even when I am fully capable of doing exactly the same task using for example Python. For the right tasks it is simply the most productive solution.

That being said even with these tools you still need to know how to 'program', at least conceptually, and it's not like just anybody can pick up a tool like this and be productive. The basic concepts of control flow and algorithms still apply and work the same way.

Re: Rails is better low code than low code

#155

Post by jokethrowaway »

ElatedOwl wrote: post #52
jameslk wrote: post #11

Both low code and Rails have become a lot less relevant since LLM assisted coding became the norm. Low code became less relevant because 1. LLMs solved many of the problems low code solves with better control over the output, and 2. you can’t use many low code platforms as an output from LLMs or other types of models (yet). Rails became less relevant because Ruby is dynamically typed, and this poses a challenge for L…

I agree that LLMs capabilities with a language are going to be extremely relevant. Community, API consistency, and whatever other factors that are going to increase LLM usefulness will decide the popularity of languages in the coming years. I’m not sold on the importance of static typing though. I’ve had great results with Ruby and Python with 4o, o1, and to a limited degree Copilot. One of the biggest benefits of Ru…

It's very evident this is the case if you generate similar JavaScript or TypeScript.

The types mismatching can really help you spot mistakes early on instead of at runtime, plus with the LLM generating trivial boring types is very straightforward.

The same effect is visible in Rust too and you'll quickly catch APIs that don't exist or that are being used incorrectly - albeit LLM understanding of Rust is really bad compared to other mainstream languages

Re: Rails is better low code than low code

#156

Post by jokethrowaway »

teitoklien wrote: post #39
chamomeal wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t rely on LLMs as much as I did when copilot came out, but I 100% agree regarding static types: they make it so much easier to tell when the LLM is spewing nonsense. I probably wouldn’t use one at all with a dynamically typed language.

the key is to not generate huge big spurts of code blocks but incremental, reviewable code blocks in dynamic typed languages. Also, “LLM”s are a constantly updating product, the new DeepSeek coder model with GPT-o1 like reasoning and chain of thought just came out, and its a lot superior than LLM models from even 1 month ago, especially when trained on internal docs, and files, and synthetic LLM generated metadata on…

It's marginally better compared to Claude and costs 10x. O1 is not a solution.

I agree there is plenty of space for improvement on the IDEs side, they need to start fetching code of dependencies and documentation dynamically, get the relevant context and pass it in the prompt to the LLM, so that they can use real code and not what the model remembers from training a certain library does.

Re: Rails is better low code than low code

#157

Post by cpursley »

egeozcan wrote: post #146
devjab wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve spend a few decades in non-tech enterprise including 7 years in the public sector, and I’ve never seen a low-code solution work at all. Even extremely simple automation flows require at least some degree of software engineering. Looping isn’t intuitive at all, he’ll even conditions aren’t. What has completely changed the field is LLMs. We now have employees of every sort building small Python scripts which actua…

Those scripts work, until they don't and the people who generated them cannot even ask the right questions to an LLM, and people who can actually maintain them get overwhelmed by the side-quests of keeping them in order, because everything that gets some use become a dependency for the business.

So we're not losing our jobs?

Re: Rails is better low code than low code

#158

Post by Angostura »

devjab wrote: post #127
ahodgkinson wrote: post #66

Low code initially works quite well until you hit the limits of the low-code framework. If you just need a throw-away proof of concept, or a personal utility, or the like, low-code solutions can be quite efficient. However, implementing anything significant that's expected to be extended and improved, particularly when there are users that request changes, improvements and new features, low-code "is like climbing a t…

I’ve spend a few decades in non-tech enterprise including 7 years in the public sector, and I’ve never seen a low-code solution work at all. Even extremely simple automation flows require at least some degree of software engineering. Looping isn’t intuitive at all, he’ll even conditions aren’t. What has completely changed the field is LLMs. We now have employees of every sort building small Python scripts which actua…

I currently work in the public sector in the UK and my experience is different. I see quite a lot of PowerAutomate going on to automate tasks and to create simple SharePoint apps.

Re: Rails is better low code than low code

#159

Post by devoutsalsa »

dagw wrote: post #154
devjab wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve spend a few decades in non-tech enterprise including 7 years in the public sector, and I’ve never seen a low-code solution work at all. Even extremely simple automation flows require at least some degree of software engineering. Looping isn’t intuitive at all, he’ll even conditions aren’t. What has completely changed the field is LLMs. We now have employees of every sort building small Python scripts which actua…

I’ve never seen a low-code solution work at all. I've worked quite a bit in civil engineering and GIS, and most places I've worked at have made very good use of a 'low-code' tool called FME for automation and ETL tasks. I even reach for it myself for many tasks, even when I am fully capable of doing exactly the same task using for example Python. For the right tasks it is simply the most productive solution. That bei…

I've never heard of FME before, but I don't do any GIS work. Are you referring to this?

https://www.tensing.com/en/software/fme

Tensing looks like they specialize in GIS.

Re: Rails is better low code than low code

#160

Post by aitchnyu »

Closi wrote: post #138
ajcp wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're taking the intent of "low-code" too literal, or have not worked in an organization of sufficient size for its value proposition to be evident. It's not to solve a solutioning problem; it's to solve an organizational one. While any "low-code" is marketed as a WYSWG, business friendly solution platform, what it actually is is a way for the business to get access to capabilities IT otherwise gatekeeps as…

100% this! In some companies the 'simple app' that is described in this post will get some ridiculous quote from central IT/tech ('it will take our team 4 sprints') and then never get signed off. IT will also ban anyone spinning up their own servers due to support issues. No code platforms manage to get around this. Another use case - I work for a 'non-tech' consultancy. Clients typically won't like paying us to spin…

I saw the powers that be sit on requests for access for readonly BI tools on existing DBs. How do the low code vendors get VIP treatment?
Post reply on HN