I recall we were shown something like this a while ago in an embedded systems class. Engineers can basically build their engine/flight/you-name-it control softw

I recall we were shown something like this a while ago in an embedded systems class. Engineers can basically build their engine/flight/you-name-it control software from boxes they click together. Some are inputs (sensors), some are outputs (actuators), other mash those together (tasks) - so you get a graph-based model of your system. And a compiler builds structured C code from it. I was told - so this is just hear-say! - that it's not uncommon for the engineers working with these tools to be well qualified domain experts, but rather poor programmers. What I want to say is: This no-code stuff the article is mentioning as cool and agile and all - that is already in existence for nearly 20 years; and that's only one tool I accidentally happen to know of. The author just adds "agile", "cloud" and "disruptive" to a yesterdays idea/technology. (I should disrupt myself now from the thought how a WYSIWYG web editor is an cloud based tool using a no-code way to generate HTML from your text; and in most cases that probably even qualifies as agile...)