In my experience, devs that have interacted with no code and had negative experiences tend to fall in a few categories: 1. Used it themselves and didn't move a

In my experience, devs that have interacted with no code and had negative experiences tend to fall in a few categories: 1. Used it themselves and didn't move any faster because of having to learn a new way of thinking 2. Used it themselves and tried to do something that seemed reasonable to them but the no-code couldn't handle 3. Had a no code solution built elsewhere in a company dumped onto them for maintenance, or to be implemented into an more robust product. I've seen this play out as: - Marketing/Sales "this mostly working and critically important to our pipieline, fold it into our system and add these 3 features. ETA should be like 2 weeks right?" - Engineering "what is this? I've never heard of it. It's going to take like 4 months to fold it into our system properly and add those features. Why didn't you ask us to build this from the start? It would have taken way less time." - Marketing "You said it would take a month to complete, and a month before it would be prioritized. We needed it in a week so we did this. If it only took us a week why will it take you months?" 1 and 2 are mostly folks who aren't the right target market, they're right and also they don't really matter unless you're trying to target those devs specifically. 3 is a real concern, because those are the devs who will campaign furiously against a product in meetings, getting burned by that once sticks around for a long time. And both sides of the conversation in 3 are often correct from their perspective, which makes it even harder. A no code solution that actually has an off-ramp to a more robust implementation would be an amazing way to deal with that, but that might always be against incentives.