this is simultaneously a valid reason not to use low code tools - and why they find favour in many organisations. >In such an environment, creating an "example

this is simultaneously a valid reason not to use low code tools - and why they find favour in many organisations. >In such an environment, creating an "example project" that contains all of the scaffolding required and just writing that sign on form is going to take waaaaay less time than even initial planning how to integrate the "no code" tool into our processes. I've also seen the opposite. Someone in the org wants a simple site. Maybe a sign up form, or CMS/wiki for internal docs, etc. The dev team says "sure, that'll be 6 months". A large part of which is constrained capacity - the devs need to fit it in alongside a buch of other stuff. Another part is tech choice: the corporate stack uses e.g. React on the front end, calling web services written in Java, backed off to Postgres for storage (or whatever). The devs estimate for building the CMS/wiki/whatever from scratch - because it has to fit the tech stack. At that point the (internal) customer screws up their face and utters all the familiar frustrations about "IT". Someone somewhere mentions to them that there's a way to sidestep it all, and do it yourself. In their position it's very hard not to see that alternative as attractive. It's a hard problem. That same internal customer will similtaneously rail against the recharge in their budget for IT. It's a cost: a drag on their P&L. IT says they're under-resourced, and they could do it quicker with more people - but that would increase the P&L drag. Vicious circle. Software is a sociotechnical endeavour yet we too often focus on the technical and ignore the social aspect. Yet "Low Code" and similar emanate primarily from the social side. Coming back to your post though, not exclusively. Development teams can be equally culpable when zeroing in on tech stacks that aren't a good fit for the problems at hand. Or, perhaps, stacks that are a good fit for the problems they were chosen to solve - but not so much when the new requirement comes along. Of course, low code is no panacea either. Most non-technologists have no perception of the need for ongoing evolution, even if there's no new feature development. Patching/upgrading is a must. And new features always emerge - most after the original "citizen developer" has moved on / lost interest / whatever. So the whole shebang gets foisted on IT, who are expected to operate and maintain it. Usually with no tests, automated builds, documentation, ... It's pernicious. At heart, though, it's primarily a social problem that needs a good underlying relationship between the customers/users and the developers. It's Conway's Law. Of course tech choice still matters. But no tech stack is going to magic away problems rooted in organisational friction.