I think we're basically saying the same thing, but I suppose the confusion is mostly semantics. >At that point you're training a developer. I don't think this

I think we're basically saying the same thing, but I suppose the confusion is mostly semantics. >At that point you're training a developer. I don't think this is necessarily the case, or even if it is, I see this as not a problem and even a perfectly acceptable situation. The goal overall is simply to take someone who wasn't originally hired to code, or someone w/ institutional knowledge but no traditional background in programming and empower/enable them to build production applications or tools. Whether in doing so they learn to write code or not is not really an issue one way or the other. >They are perfect for lazy programmers, but less so for "Citizen Developers". This was in your original comment and to what I was mostly responding. It seems to me that low-code solutions like Excel do indeed enable people who don't consider themselves programmers to build tools. To a certain extent no-code/low-code solutions like Squarespace do a similar thing, where someone without ever knowing what HTML or CSS is can still build a website, but obviously someone with additional experience would be able to make even better use of the tool. Basically my issue is that I think low-code solutions can actually be pretty decent and useful, but there are a lot of bad solutions out there and I obviously don't see them displacing coders. However, I wouldn't go as far to say that you need to train someone to program in order to make use of low-code solutions.