Low-/no-code environments are really great for exposing domain-specific landscapes to non-coders, but that significantly reduces the hype value of the lingo, wh

Low-/no-code environments are really great for exposing domain-specific landscapes to non-coders, but that significantly reduces the hype value of the lingo, which aims to convince buyers that they can replace those pesky non-specific domain problem spaces and coders with capex and a smidge of opex. The value proposition of these products is the same as before because this is a repackaging of fourth-generation languages, and the economics have not changed. The more narrow the domain, the easier it gets to figure out a low-/no-code environment that will work for the users. But the smaller the base of purchases. And distilling the complexity to just the right level still takes some really bright domain experts with extremely good intuition of where the most profitable use cases lay (the hardest role to fill) and highly empathetic coders (also hard to fill) who work well together (extremely rare), or a single person who embodies both (unicorn). If energy and money were no object, low-/no-code is absolutely A Thing. I believe there is some kind of emergent Shannon–Hartley theorem behavior here, where complexity down a communications network with certain noise/bandwidth/etc. properties has some suspected hard physics-as-we-know-it limits.