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

211–220 of 249 posts

Re: Rails is better low code than low code

#211

Post by quotemstr »

phartenfeller wrote: post #132
KronisLV wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It still expects you to have skills in database development so you can achieve everything but generating a Report, Grid or Form from a SQL query takes as long as you need to write the query. And everything is customizable and maintainable in the end. Isn't this what people thought about Oracle Forms before it going the way it did?

Yes, it similarly just builds around developers storing the code in the database layer. Forms is still around, with some giant companies relying on it, but of course, it is slowly dying. APEX is also 20 years old already, but based on the web stack. This choice aged perfectly, so it went from a niche inside Oracle to now the default application framework inside Oracle around 2020. Oracle Forums[0] is build on APEX fo…

Is it me, or is that forum site very slow?

Re: Rails is better low code than low code

#212

Post by anonyfox »

I don't know. I recently am drawn more and more in pure Go code, which is conceptually as simple as it gets, yet I can achieve basically everything imaginable in it without hitting walls/limitations. Add some (embedded) SQLite for small/quick/cheap things or postgres for when it gets more involved or critical (horizontal scaling, backups, ...), and everything is quickly possible. Now with LLMs, its outright trivial to make them generate functionality at will immediately, and (pure) Go is exceptionally friendly with LLM codegen, due to the language being stupid simple and the stdlib being "complete" for years.

Essentially I prefer staying at the "you need to be a coder" abstraction level, but the general tooling nowadays makes becoming one very easy. Once you mentally lift the requirement that something needs to be configurable by some non-technical end user or even needs an UI at all, 90%+ of all dev effort can be saved directly. Plus there are no showstoppers in capabilities or usual barriers like too bad performance/config hell of "no code"/"low code" I encountered quite often. And if you don't use the latest webdev fads, things can be maintainable for decades (looking at Go compared to NodeJS).

Rawdogging basic programming (yes, also no framework if possible) made more "business" projects first succeed (and then stay alive easily) much more than either a web framework or any kind of lo-/no-tool, at least the things I encountered in the wild. Even bad spaghetticode monstrosities can now uploaded to an LLM and refactored into sanity quite efficiently.

The worst kind of projects (with lots of pain and regret) have been either JS-based, mis-used framework projects (including rails!) or Salesforce setups. Often you're stuck in a dead-end here.

Re: Rails is better low code than low code

#213

Post by SOLAR_FIELDS »

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…

The best low code solutions I’ve seen from the end user perspective are ones that create sane looking skeleton code for you and have an eject button for when you hit the boundaries of what the tool is capable of. The eject button is a one off operation that switches the low code solution to a traditional code based solution, and is irreversible. Bootstrapping and prototyping quickly is a great use case for low code tools in the phase where long term code maintenance is not really important.

Such a model is not easily monetized which is why you don’t often see this model in the wild. Draftbit is one company I’ve seen that uses this model: https://draftbit.com/pricing. Note I am not affiliated and have not used the software just find it interesting to see this model actually out in the wild.

Re: Rails is better low code than low code

#214

Post by niam »

jve wrote: post #152
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.

PowerApps would not catch me endorsing it for anything beyond a year of use, however. Either a replacement needs to be on its way, or it's for a project with a defined end date.

Otherwise, "there's nothing more permanent than a temporary solution".

Re: Rails is better low code than low code

#215

Post by HelloNurse »

jayd16 wrote: post #109
quantadev wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well said. You are exactly right. Low Code stuff is usually invented by people with a specific set of criteria that they realize can be generalized, and defined by a GUI, but who lack enough experience to realize the entire world of possibilities can't be crammed into their model. Languages (like Python, etc) are already the most compact way to represent most things, and trying to avoid that fact just makes things ev…

You're letting perfect be the enemy of good. The low code solutions can simply have a full-code escape hatch with interop. Much like how Python can interop with C.

But people who lack enough experience to realize the entire world of possibilities that can't be crammed into their model aren't normally humble enough to design good escape hatches.

Re: Rails is better low code than low code

#216

Post by analog31 »

miohtama wrote: post #137
analog31 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Matlab / Simulink will doubtlessly have a very long tail, but is being overtaken by Python. For one thing, programming is gaining ground in areas that have no established loyalty to Matlab, and those are growing areas. Such as the life sciences. For another, a certain fraction of students want to test the waters and see if they can explore software development as a career option. Python is more relevant to that optio…

Python is also open source.

Indeed, and that's an attraction even despite Matlab being effectively "free" due to generous academic site licenses. But people are catching on that open source means more than "free" as in beer. I think it has also encouraged what we've seen, the flourishing ecosystem of libraries, tools, tutorials, etc., that really make Python what is. People don't want to pour their heart and soul into something that somebody else owns.

Re: Rails is better low code than low code

#218

Post by carsoon »

anonyfox wrote: post #212

I don't know. I recently am drawn more and more in pure Go code, which is conceptually as simple as it gets, yet I can achieve basically everything imaginable in it without hitting walls/limitations. Add some (embedded) SQLite for small/quick/cheap things or postgres for when it gets more involved or critical (horizontal scaling, backups, ...), and everything is quickly possible. Now with LLMs, its outright trivial t…

Same thing I have settled on.

Sqlite for quick and easy postgres for scaling.

For simple frontends I just use the built in go templates.

If I need complex frontends for larger apps I use sveltekit/svelte5 for frontend data I just export a single instance of a class that has state/derived fields for data and an isInitialized field that returns a promise for loading the data. Then methods for reloading data, changing data or any actions I need.

So all i have to do is await classInstance then use the class data in whatever way I need. Everything is reactive and simple due to states. you can use and update the fields directly like regular js but with global reactivity built in.

The data automatically loads the first time the module is imported. due to how esmodule files work. I just have a classInstance.LoadData() after the export.

Svelte5 isn't as good with LLM's but with some small instructions about how states, derived, and effects work it works pretty well.

Re: Rails is better low code than low code

#219

Post by bobm_kite9 »

Good article but this misses the obvious - but slightly more distant - eventuality: the no-code vendor goes bankrupt meaning no further support or security fixes, or is bought out by some other firm which means exorbitant future licensing costs and no further features.

Again, some people might not care about that but it seems kind of a biggie to me.

Re: Rails is better low code than low code

#220

Post by ivell »

ajcp wrote: post #101
throwaway42668 wrote: post #83

I never understood the "low code" microbubble that was being inflated. We went through that era already. We called them RAD tools, and they targeted the same sort of strange, mythical end user profile. Someone so technically capable and apt that they could navigate a dizzying domain of deeply buried checkboxes, property fields, and sprawling relationships & side-effects, but who was also simultaneously unable to unde…

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…

I have heard this before. But before we assume incompetence, first we need to understand what the IT is producing. Anyone in IT can also build the application in a very short time. What the business do not fully understand is the effort required to implement all the other non-functional requirements they need but they don't know yet. Once the quick and dirty solution is done, and they are happy that the feature are done, they realize it is not compliant. Now they spent some effort for compliance and after that they realize that there is no backup. If the data is corrupted, all is lost. So then they call up their business analyst to implement that. And after a few such iterations they give up and hand it over to IT. Now IT has a shitty application that is not secure, partially compliant and terrible disaster recovery. So it has to be rebuilt. Now it costs much more than if IT had implemented it in the beginning.

The costs of the IT department exists because we have experience on the real costs of implementing production grade software.

For minor throwaway apps, there is always excel and MS access.

Post reply on HN