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

41–50 of 249 posts

Re: Rails is better low code than low code

#41

Post by Spivak »

paxys wrote: post #40

This can be generalized to - whatever language and framework you are very familiar with is best for the job.

I don't think this is always true, so they are saying something here. It might not be super profound but:

> the advantage of 'low-code' is an essentially flat learning curve, if you have expertise in the field you're being asked to prototype in your strongest stack will be faster and better.

It's at least actionable by developers who might feel tempted by these tools for a throw-away project.

Re: Rails is better low code than low code

#42

Post by owlstuffing »

jiggawatts wrote: post #28
Neywiny wrote: post #8

It would be nice to get a brief definition of "low code." Otherwise great article. I've found myself using "low code" frameworks when they setup my environment for me and can generate the code files. Key example was a Minecraft mod maker. Within a minute I was fed up with the scratch style programming, but it had all the Java build stuff ready for me to just edit the files myself. No setting up gradle or anything.

Generally these are the drag & drop visual editors like Microsoft Power Apps and the like. Like the article said, my experience is that they're Great!™ until they're not, at which point you're painted into a corner.

Yep. They demo great, but unless your use case is on the trivial end, you either find yourself making unreasonable compromises or, if the tool provides API escapes, you’re not only coding, but hacking against the tool.

In my view, mainstream languages like Java should offer static metaprogramming for library authors to make tooling like Rails possible and more approachable in IDEs.

The manifold project[1] has something like this for SQL, but it’s obviously providing its own static metaprogramming layer over Java. Shrug.

1. https://github.com/manifold-systems/manifold/blob/master/man...

Re: Rails is better low code than low code

#43

Post by verdverm »

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…

> since LLM assisted coding became the norm.

Has it? I don't think many here would agree it is the new norm

> better control over the output

LLMs are notorious for inconsistent output. Deterministic code gen is predictable. The control of a SaaS style low-code project may be limited, some offer to eject the codebase for you. There are numerous open frameworks, like Rails, where you have full control. It's about how you define control. Using a magic box like an LLM to generate code inconsistently comes with a lot of headaches. Why not choose the predictable magic box like Rails?

> Any down voters care to explain why you disagree?

Talking about downvoting typically earns more downvotes because it is against the posting guidelines

Re: Rails is better low code than low code

#44

Post by em-bee »

this story is missing the third option: use something complete and ready to run like wordpress. or reuse the CRUD backend from your previous project. the ultimate low code option is to use something that is already written.

i am building all my sites on the same generic backend, that has all the features any website would want, object storage, user management, access control, sync and async messaging like IRC, XMPP, email..., database, various APIs, the works. for most websites i don't even have to touch the backend code anymore. it's like a database. when did you last have to make changes to your DB?

i had one customer who had a demo of a complex app without a backend. the frontend was fully functional but no data was being saved. we were able to integrate that frontend with our reusable backend and we had the whole thing actually working in a very short time without any custom coding beides adding things to the API and adapting the frontend to use it.

Re: Rails is better low code than low code

#45

Post by jameslk »

verdverm wrote: post #43
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…

> since LLM assisted coding became the norm. Has it? I don't think many here would agree it is the new norm > better control over the output LLMs are notorious for inconsistent output. Deterministic code gen is predictable. The control of a SaaS style low-code project may be limited, some offer to eject the codebase for you. There are numerous open frameworks, like Rails, where you have full control. It's about how y…

> Has it? I don't think many here would agree it is the new norm

Yes: https://survey.stackoverflow.co/2024/ai/#sentiment-and-usage

Anecdotally, my entire engineering team chooses to use LLM assistance because they feel more productive with it

> Talking about downvoting typically earns more downvotes because it is against the posting guidelines

I’m fine with the down votes. I asked because there were no comments, which makes for a pretty boring discussion. Now there are some comments. Thank you for leaving yours

Re: Rails is better low code than low code

#46

Post by cageface »

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…

restrained and thoughtful in its use is exactly how I expect people to not use these tools. Copy and paste and push the commit is more like it.

Re: Rails is better low code than low code

#47

Post by maleldil »

rqtwteye wrote: post #13
simplemindedbot wrote: post #4

So low-code is faster to get started with little programming knowledge but isn’t expandable. OTOH, a language and framework that you’ve taken the time and effort to learn takes a little longer to get started but is ultimately more suited to more complex tasks. I think the takeaway from the narrative here is knowing when to switch from the low code platform and call it a PoC. I’d have cut that off around the point tha…

I usually go straight to the full language. It's pretty hard to find the point when to switch from low code to something else when there is time pressure. Same with bash vs python. People say you should switch from bash once you have more than 100 lines or so. But at this point you already have some complexity in bash which makes the switch to python non trivial. So you usually end up patching the bash script in smal…

Better to immediately switch to Python (or anything else) once you have any non-trivial control flow in your bash script. Loops, non-trivial conditionals, and argument parsing are all easier in Python. Bash is for simple scripts that just chain commands.

Re: Rails is better low code than low code

#48

Post by MattGaiser »

jumpoddly wrote: post #38

Better headline: The framework you know intimately is better low code than low code. What programmer “believes” in “low code” solutions?

The real pain point low code seems to solve is boilerplate. Say that I am getting Django ready to go. To get started, have to Dockerize, swap to Postgres, add linting, swap out of the User model, etc.

But once all that is ready to go, it is about as fast as low code in my experience.

Re: Rails is better low code than low code

#49

Post by jiggawatts »

ozim wrote: post #34
jiggawatts wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally these are the drag & drop visual editors like Microsoft Power Apps and the like. Like the article said, my experience is that they're Great!™ until they're not, at which point you're painted into a corner.

Funny thing is they stop being great rather quick. When you configure 10 controls and then you have to do another 10 but slightly different - with code you can mostly copy, paste, modify with search and replace and you are done. With low code tools usually it is just the same work again and even if you can duplicate stuff with an option in the interface adjusting stuff goes one by one.

Personally I find this to be the worst with ETL tools such as Microsoft SQL Server Integration Services (SSIS).

Table-to-table mappings are often very mechanical, with a set of simple exceptions or deviations, such as adding one column or skipping one column.

There is nothing fiddlier in this world than repeating these steps over and over with a GUI tool where you have to individually click each column mapping link to open its "properties" one... at... a... time... for hundreds of tables with dozens of columns each.

Re: Rails is better low code than low code

#50

Post by weitendorf »

jumpoddly wrote: post #38

Better headline: The framework you know intimately is better low code than low code. What programmer “believes” in “low code” solutions?

Sufficiently advanced "low code" is indistinguishable from a framework or a library.

The main difference in practice is that most software that markets itself as "low code" obscures how it works and tries to lock you in to charge rent. Though to be fair, there is generally not much of a market for proprietary/non-OSS libraries and frameworks anymore, so if you want to monetize your library/framework low-code (or an API) is probably the way to do it.

Aside from that, I do think the "low code" label can be genuinely helpful as a way of communicating towards semi-technical users that the software they're using is intended to be usable with their level of technical sophistication. IMO this has been a perpetually underserved market, and it's growing over time especially as computer science/programming gains popularity in schools. There are a lot of people out there who understand basic programming and took maybe a couple CS classes in their life, and want to do something entrepreneurial or practical for their non-SWE jobs, but aren't skilled enough to dive right in to doing things the way experienced SWEs would do it.

Post reply on HN