3 ms·

As a counterpoint, while an engineer / programmer is demonstrably very capable of identifying and fixing a load of non technical problems, there is often more t

As a counterpoint, while an engineer / programmer is demonstrably very capable of identifying and fixing a load of non technical problems, there is often more than one solution to a problem, and some solutions are more palpable than others. Very often, whole groups can also be bullied into mistaking one problem for another. Which takes us back to why 'No-Code' solutions look so appealling. Even to (some) engineers. Democracies appear to function a fair amount better than dictatorships, afterall.

leonidasv 6y ago
As a compliment to your comment, I think there's something people are ignoring when talking about "no-code" that is: complexity will always be there. Sure, no-code may work for your commodity-ish software problem. But corner cases will arise sooner or later. And, if no-code wants to keep pace with, it will have to provide more and more options. At some point, you will need someone with expertise in no-code to continue using it - and now we are back to the world where specialized engineers are needed. It's impossible to have some tool that is, at the same time, easy to use and flexible enough. Corner cases tend to arise faster than you may think. And when they don't, it's possible that there's already too much competition to make your product feasible. Also, no-code tends to have a deep lock-in problem and I think people overlook it most of the time.
- tjchear 6y ago
  As a counter to your points, I think no-code works best if your business's competitive advantage is the non-technical side of things, e.g services, network effects, people, non-software products, etc. An example of such a business would be say an art dealer who wants to build a customized painting browser app for their clients, or a developer specializing in eco friendly materials wanting to showcase their materials. In such cases, no-code helps immensely because you don't have to spend much on engineering and you can iterate quickly. Ideally, no-code providers should provide a webhook and a REST interface, and just be the best at what they're doing, instead of being a one-stop shop that tries to cover every use case. If you want to cover everybody's usecase, build a better Zapier instead.
nogabebop23 6y ago
>> Democracies appear to function a fair amount better than dictatorships, afterall. Define "better". Maybe on average for everyone, but is this what software should do? The idea of "conceptual integrity" actually seems to match up better with a dictatorship, and most software targets relatively small and homogenous user sets, so maybe the mental model should be "tightly bound tribe".
- Siira 6y ago
  It's mostly irrelevant anyways; The biggest inefficiency of dictatorships is that there are actual dictators that can eat a nation's riches. I don't quite see that parallel in design space.
  - dynamite-ready 6y ago
    The parallel is quite simply a monopoly on ideas and the resources for implementing them. Usually, when someone wants to introduce a new idea, there's a burden of proof regarding feasibility. For technical projects the ability of the engineer to prove or disprove an idea is taken for granted, and gives technical staff a degree of inscrutability which can often look dictatorial ("There's no way that will work!", etc). So while it's not as vital as the effect of a 'real' political dictatorship, the implied dynamic is similar.

leonidasv 6y ago

As a compliment to your comment, I think there's something people are ignoring when talking about "no-code" that is: complexity will always be there. Sure, no-code may work for your commodity-ish software problem. But corner cases will arise sooner or later. And, if no-code wants to keep pace with, it will have to provide more and more options. At some point, you will need someone with expertise in no-code to continue using it - and now we are back to the world where specialized engineers are needed. It's impossible to have some tool that is, at the same time, easy to use and flexible enough. Corner cases tend to arise faster than you may think. And when they don't, it's possible that there's already too much competition to make your product feasible. Also, no-code tends to have a deep lock-in problem and I think people overlook it most of the time.

tjchear 6y ago
As a counter to your points, I think no-code works best if your business's competitive advantage is the non-technical side of things, e.g services, network effects, people, non-software products, etc. An example of such a business would be say an art dealer who wants to build a customized painting browser app for their clients, or a developer specializing in eco friendly materials wanting to showcase their materials. In such cases, no-code helps immensely because you don't have to spend much on engineering and you can iterate quickly. Ideally, no-code providers should provide a webhook and a REST interface, and just be the best at what they're doing, instead of being a one-stop shop that tries to cover every use case. If you want to cover everybody's usecase, build a better Zapier instead.

nogabebop23 6y ago

>> Democracies appear to function a fair amount better than dictatorships, afterall. Define "better". Maybe on average for everyone, but is this what software should do? The idea of "conceptual integrity" actually seems to match up better with a dictatorship, and most software targets relatively small and homogenous user sets, so maybe the mental model should be "tightly bound tribe".

Siira 6y ago
It's mostly irrelevant anyways; The biggest inefficiency of dictatorships is that there are actual dictators that can eat a nation's riches. I don't quite see that parallel in design space.
- dynamite-ready 6y ago
  The parallel is quite simply a monopoly on ideas and the resources for implementing them. Usually, when someone wants to introduce a new idea, there's a burden of proof regarding feasibility. For technical projects the ability of the engineer to prove or disprove an idea is taken for granted, and gives technical staff a degree of inscrutability which can often look dictatorial ("There's no way that will work!", etc). So while it's not as vital as the effect of a 'real' political dictatorship, the implied dynamic is similar.