3 ms·
I agree, but there is a kernel of truth here, which is making programming more accessible by means of higher level constructs that are easy to use while also be
by rsj_hn 5y ago
I agree, but there is a kernel of truth here, which is making programming more accessible by means of higher level constructs that are easy to use while also being less general. Excel is a great example, in that it opened up the world of macros and programming to a huge population. Yes, you still need technical skills and programming skills, but the entry bar is lowered in exchange for playing in a tighter sandbox. In many cases, this is a good tradeoff. All the no-code/low-code stuff is just marketing trying to promote this.
- gregjor 5y agoThe entry bar got lowered back in the 80s with cheap home computers running BASIC. Lots of us learned on low-end low barrier to entry systems like that. There’s no gate keeping. Anyone who wants to learn programming has a wealth of tools and languages and resources to choose from, for free. This is a replay of previous attempts to pretend to democratize programming and reduce the dependence on rare and expensive programmers. Those are real problems but I don’t think we get there by pretending that anyone can build a system out of software Lego blocks. The actual market here is VCs and C-suite managers looking at software dev labor costs, and misunderstanding (and getting misled) about the reasons for those costs.
- rsj_hn 5y agoYeah, those basic computers were fun, but having an entry level computer you could write basic programs on wasn't going to help you automate business processes, whereas writing an office macro would. That's kindof the point - to embed the functionality with the data and existing applications, so you can think of these "low code" interfaces built into online apps as the cloud version of those old MS visual basic macros. Except some of these added various drag and drop functionality to graphically add some logic, lowering the bar a bit further.
- gregjor 5y agoWell anything can happen. Approaching the end of my career after 40 years programming, I’ve heard for decades (no exaggeration) how low code/no code tools would make me obsolete. For the last decade or two I’ve also heard that AI would be taking my job any day now. I don’t hold my breath. I’ll be writing code until I stop, and I predict that in ten years businesses will have more work for skilled programmers, not less. These low code/no code tools aren’t useless, but the people who are most likely to buy them are not likely to put in the 5+ years to learn more about programming. If they do they will want to move beyond the low/no code stuff. If they don’t they will be stuck writing macros to automate their business processes, which eventually means the business is constrained by the low/no code tools.
- rsj_hn 5y agoExtending programmability does not make programmers obsolete, anymore than putting better cameras into iPhones makes photographers obsolete. It's just more tools, and it will even increase the ranks of developers by giving them more onramps. A friend of mine started out writing ActionScript and now he's a full fledged developer. These scripting languages and drag and drop interfaces are useful and so they will be used. No one will be obsoleted by them.
- hyperman1 5y agoI knew a business doing just that with a zx spectrum. Even with the horrors of deafening chain paper printers and software on audio casettes. They had a CRMish application written by a student. They could print their own mailings with individualized coupons. Who cares if it takes a noisy hour in a back room to run. Don't underestimate what people did with those things.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> Yeah, those basic computers were fun, but having an entry level computer you could write basic programs on wasn't going to help you automate business processes Yes, it was, and lots of people with those computers and small businesses used them to do exactly that. (And others used them to do the same thing with household “business processes”.)