3 ms·

“Ideally” is quite a word, highly subjective. But really you are missing a key piece of the puzzle, it matters less what is happening and more why. Sure a low

“Ideally” is quite a word, highly subjective. But really you are missing a key piece of the puzzle, it matters less what is happening and more why. Sure a low code tool could churn out a textual description to say if the value of some variable is < some threshold branch to X else branch to Y, but thats generally easy to figure out, why is that threshold important, that’s a question that requires understanding the intention of the user of engineer who set it up, that’s not something you can just puke out of an auto-doc tool. I would go so far as to say the inability to capture intention is one of the sharpest edges for low-code tools, it makes the solutions built on then extremely brittle and creates silos of knowledge. Expanding on that further this is why most auto generated documentation is worth the effort put into it.

bb88 3y ago
All programming languages are some sort of abstraction to the underlying machine language. Low code is just "one more abstraction to machine language". Previous art in this area would be Lotus Notes (1990's), Hypercard (1980's), and Lotus 123 (1980's). Low code should be as close to a speaking language as possible. Declarative ideally. e.g. "Create a read-write rest framework for the database table named orders". An engineer would then go, "Oh, so you know you're missing permissions from the LDAP groups", and then solve that problem, and then figure out how make the LDAP groups map to the low code framework. That's kinda the sorta thing we do already.