There's lots of good general criticism about Low Code tools, and certainly lots of it is valid depending on the tool and the context.
Of course, just like say the SQL or NoSQL debate there are contexts where one wins, and another fails.
I did have to smile at this though;
>> "Now, rather than being to recruit from a large pool of ubiquitous, open-source language developers, the company has to find maintainers who are very specialized in this tool."
From a company point of view this is correct. You cant just discard programmers and get a cheap, out-sourced one as a replacement.
On the other hand, as a somewhat older programmer, I like the idea that I get more valuable with age not less. I like that I can't be replaced by some ubiquitous open source freelancer who works for $20 an hour.
For the record I've been working with a low-code tool for 30 years (since long before "low code" was even a description) and I've seen thousands of one-man companies be successful developing programs where the owners actual programming skills are, well, in most cases, somewhat poor.
Turns out, making something useful has more to do with fixing pain, and less to do either writing code.
And yes, all the points listed in the article, and these comments, are true. And ironically almost none of it actually matters.
There are a million reasons it -shouldn't- work and yet, somehow, at least in my world it does.
I think this is the key a lot are missing. It’s about solving the problem, not necessarily doing so in a way that’s preferred or familiar to you. Low code has prod/cons but it has a place in the industry that many developers seem to be too arrogant to acknowledge.
Of course, just like say the SQL or NoSQL debate there are contexts where one wins, and another fails.
I did have to smile at this though;
>> "Now, rather than being to recruit from a large pool of ubiquitous, open-source language developers, the company has to find maintainers who are very specialized in this tool."
From a company point of view this is correct. You cant just discard programmers and get a cheap, out-sourced one as a replacement.
On the other hand, as a somewhat older programmer, I like the idea that I get more valuable with age not less. I like that I can't be replaced by some ubiquitous open source freelancer who works for $20 an hour.
For the record I've been working with a low-code tool for 30 years (since long before "low code" was even a description) and I've seen thousands of one-man companies be successful developing programs where the owners actual programming skills are, well, in most cases, somewhat poor.
Turns out, making something useful has more to do with fixing pain, and less to do either writing code.
And yes, all the points listed in the article, and these comments, are true. And ironically almost none of it actually matters.
There are a million reasons it -shouldn't- work and yet, somehow, at least in my world it does.