4 ms·

I'm 100% against enterprise-level low code stuff. If you're big enough to afford that junk you're big enough to afford proper development teams with proper plan

I'm 100% against enterprise-level low code stuff. If you're big enough to afford that junk you're big enough to afford proper development teams with proper planning and organization. In general I see little value in any large system intending to reduce the amount of code or the needed skills of the developer. Code is not costing you money. Good developers are not costing you money. You know what costs money? Bad developers making bad decisions using bad tools, necessitating years if not decades of paying armies of lesser-skilled developers to maintain the mess, slowing overall progress to a glacial pace.

tonyedgecombe 3y ago
Most enterprise software is terrible, it's the lowest quality software you will come across. Paying more for good developers won't fix that because the problems all emanate from the enterprise itself.
abeyer 3y ago
Largely agree... and to top it off, the pricing models mostly work against ever having a successful deployment of one. Either you price per end user, and optimize against building anything that is widely adopted, or you pay per developer, in which case you need to figure out up front who are the people with unmet needs who also happen to have the knowledge, skills, inclination, and time to build their own solution. (and this is enterprise pricing, so you need to know up front for at least a year how many of these you'll have, or you'll end up in a contract renegotiation or paying expensive overage fees.)
elicksaur 3y ago
> Good developers are not costing you money. I’m assuming you’re taking a rhetorical liberty here and really mean “net money”, but then what if you can get a similar end product for lower price? That’s higher net money.
- MetaWhirledPeas 3y ago
  What counts for "similar end product" typically ignores all future needs of the business. One project gets accomplished and everyone gets a pat on the back and a bonus. Then as the years go by the accomplishments become more and more mundane. For example, upgrading the enterprise software to a newer version suddenly counts as progress and everyone once again gets a pat on the back. Eventually everyone wonders why the IT expense is so huge and why the company's software seems to be treading water. So someone bites on another sales pitch and years are spent transitioning to some awful alternative enterprise turd, and the cycle continues until bankruptcy or acquisition.
ozim 3y ago
I think problem is that not every company can hire and retain proper development teams. That is some wild goose chase that also causes buildup of „agile” smoke and mirrors market and the same with „low code” smoke and mirrors market. I was quite skeptical about talent shortage in IT but the loner I work on the space the more I see and understand. As there are real issues with talent and agile or low code are ways of coping with the problem.

tonyedgecombe 3y ago

Most enterprise software is terrible, it's the lowest quality software you will come across. Paying more for good developers won't fix that because the problems all emanate from the enterprise itself.

abeyer 3y ago

Largely agree... and to top it off, the pricing models mostly work against ever having a successful deployment of one. Either you price per end user, and optimize against building anything that is widely adopted, or you pay per developer, in which case you need to figure out up front who are the people with unmet needs who also happen to have the knowledge, skills, inclination, and time to build their own solution. (and this is enterprise pricing, so you need to know up front for at least a year how many of these you'll have, or you'll end up in a contract renegotiation or paying expensive overage fees.)

elicksaur 3y ago

> Good developers are not costing you money. I’m assuming you’re taking a rhetorical liberty here and really mean “net money”, but then what if you can get a similar end product for lower price? That’s higher net money.

MetaWhirledPeas 3y ago
What counts for "similar end product" typically ignores all future needs of the business. One project gets accomplished and everyone gets a pat on the back and a bonus. Then as the years go by the accomplishments become more and more mundane. For example, upgrading the enterprise software to a newer version suddenly counts as progress and everyone once again gets a pat on the back. Eventually everyone wonders why the IT expense is so huge and why the company's software seems to be treading water. So someone bites on another sales pitch and years are spent transitioning to some awful alternative enterprise turd, and the cycle continues until bankruptcy or acquisition.

ozim 3y ago

I think problem is that not every company can hire and retain proper development teams. That is some wild goose chase that also causes buildup of „agile” smoke and mirrors market and the same with „low code” smoke and mirrors market. I was quite skeptical about talent shortage in IT but the loner I work on the space the more I see and understand. As there are real issues with talent and agile or low code are ways of coping with the problem.