5 ms·

I've long thought that this is the way applications should be built. 90% of what we do as app developers could be automated away. This looks really promising.

by ccleve 8y ago

I've long thought that this is the way applications should be built. 90% of what we do as app developers could be automated away. This looks really promising. That having been said, I'd like to echo some of the other comments here. You need better docs. As an app developer, I want to see some things right away: 1. What's the server written in? Can I see the code? It isn't clear which of your Github repos contain the server. If your server is proprietary or secret, make that clear. 2. I'm not going to install VirtualBox. Just give me a binary that I can install so I can see what's going on. 3. I want to see what a finished app looks like. Either do a video, or better yet, put up a demo site. Don't make me install the Hours app just to see it. 4. What is the Alan Connect app? I want to see it before I install it. 5. Give me a way to escape the system. I get that I don't need to write code, but for some things, I really do. In what language do I write custom functions? How do I customize the UI? I understand that I could slog through the docs to find the answers for all these things, but your adoption rate will go way up if you make it easier. When I evaluate new software, if I can't find the answers to the big questions in 20 or 30 minutes, I move on.

klageveen 8y ago
Thanks for the feedback, this is exactly what we're looking for here. Perhaps some of this is "how to launch a platform 101", but we can't guess all the concerns everyone may have. Also, we're not necessarily looking to really kick start adoption for a wide audience right now. The platform lacks maturity on a number of levels to properly support that. We'll continue to work on our documentation and clarify some of the things you mention here. A grab bag of quick responses: The server is in-house, written in C and C++ and (at this moment) closed source. If you're on Linux or MacOS you can simply run the server from the command line: https://alan-platform.com/pages/tuts/reference.html#starting-a-server-from-the-command-line https://alan-platform.com/pages/tuts/reference.html#starting... We don't support custom functions, but we do support custom applications that run alongside the stack. They can be written in anything, and we have tools to quickly develop such systems in JS, TypeScript and C++. They're not part of what we're making available to community users right now, so documentation is still a bit limited. We understand people want to see the UI, but it's not the key selling point. Pretty apps isn't what you'd use Alan for (although you could). We try to focus on the modeling language, as it's hopefully unique and cool enough to draw the right audience in.
- tyingq 8y ago
  "Pretty apps isn't what you'd use Alan for" Wouldn't a visual model bulder speed up the creation of all those declarative data models?
  - klageveen 8y ago
    It definitely could. However, written language is really powerful. We're still developing new features for the modeling language and keeping the cost of each iteration down is super important for us. A visual editor is something that would definitely help empower our target audience, but right now it would get in the way. I would love building something like that some time in the future though.
- TuringTest 8y ago
  I second the GP's sentiment regarding code availability. Most of your repositories are MIT-licensed, yet you claim that the platform will be non-free (CC-BY-NC). Could you please clarify whether the server source code is or will be made available under this license?
- d0m 8y ago
  IMHO could show a UI demo written in a different language as a "side-app", as long as the core data model is in Alan; that would make it easier to see the power of Alan.
- maxsilver 8y ago
  > We understand people want to see the UI, but it's not the key selling point. Pretty apps isn't what you'd use Alan for (although you could). In my humble opinion, I would suggest rethinking this. I imagine you don't intend to sound that way, but a response like this might suggest to people that you don't value user experience or good design, which would rule a lot of otherwise-interested people right out. For any serious project, how it looks and how it feels is every bit as important as how it functions. (Even for B2B or internal-only needs, this regularly remains true). If I can't build a gorgeous, industry-leading well designed app in Alan, then there needs to be clear information about how I would do that outside of Alan while using your platform. Otherwise, Alan is just for disposable apps / throw-away apps / Excel-replacement apps, and for any serious work, I'm eventually going to have to rewrite the whole app in something else anyway so I might as well start there first.
cptaj 8y ago
I agree that 90% of app should be written this way. I think the problem is that clients think of software development as something analogous to design or architecture. If we took a more utilitarian approach to software and a more expert-driven design process, we could bring costs down and reliability would go way up. This is absolutely the way to go for the future. Computers need to be quickly and easily programmable in a standardized way that anyone can learn in highschool and still use daily for at least a few decades into their professional lives.

by ccleve 8y ago

klageveen 8y ago

Thanks for the feedback, this is exactly what we're looking for here. Perhaps some of this is "how to launch a platform 101", but we can't guess all the concerns everyone may have. Also, we're not necessarily looking to really kick start adoption for a wide audience right now. The platform lacks maturity on a number of levels to properly support that. We'll continue to work on our documentation and clarify some of the things you mention here. A grab bag of quick responses: The server is in-house, written in C and C++ and (at this moment) closed source. If you're on Linux or MacOS you can simply run the server from the command line: https://alan-platform.com/pages/tuts/reference.html#starting-a-server-from-the-command-line https://alan-platform.com/pages/tuts/reference.html#starting... We don't support custom functions, but we do support custom applications that run alongside the stack. They can be written in anything, and we have tools to quickly develop such systems in JS, TypeScript and C++. They're not part of what we're making available to community users right now, so documentation is still a bit limited. We understand people want to see the UI, but it's not the key selling point. Pretty apps isn't what you'd use Alan for (although you could). We try to focus on the modeling language, as it's hopefully unique and cool enough to draw the right audience in.

tyingq 8y ago
"Pretty apps isn't what you'd use Alan for" Wouldn't a visual model bulder speed up the creation of all those declarative data models?
- klageveen 8y ago
  It definitely could. However, written language is really powerful. We're still developing new features for the modeling language and keeping the cost of each iteration down is super important for us. A visual editor is something that would definitely help empower our target audience, but right now it would get in the way. I would love building something like that some time in the future though.
TuringTest 8y ago
I second the GP's sentiment regarding code availability. Most of your repositories are MIT-licensed, yet you claim that the platform will be non-free (CC-BY-NC). Could you please clarify whether the server source code is or will be made available under this license?
d0m 8y ago
IMHO could show a UI demo written in a different language as a "side-app", as long as the core data model is in Alan; that would make it easier to see the power of Alan.
maxsilver 8y ago
> We understand people want to see the UI, but it's not the key selling point. Pretty apps isn't what you'd use Alan for (although you could). In my humble opinion, I would suggest rethinking this. I imagine you don't intend to sound that way, but a response like this might suggest to people that you don't value user experience or good design, which would rule a lot of otherwise-interested people right out. For any serious project, how it looks and how it feels is every bit as important as how it functions. (Even for B2B or internal-only needs, this regularly remains true). If I can't build a gorgeous, industry-leading well designed app in Alan, then there needs to be clear information about how I would do that outside of Alan while using your platform. Otherwise, Alan is just for disposable apps / throw-away apps / Excel-replacement apps, and for any serious work, I'm eventually going to have to rewrite the whole app in something else anyway so I might as well start there first.

cptaj 8y ago

I agree that 90% of app should be written this way. I think the problem is that clients think of software development as something analogous to design or architecture. If we took a more utilitarian approach to software and a more expert-driven design process, we could bring costs down and reliability would go way up. This is absolutely the way to go for the future. Computers need to be quickly and easily programmable in a standardized way that anyone can learn in highschool and still use daily for at least a few decades into their professional lives.