[maxrev17]

Developers are a tough market (I am one). They're also a pain to manage, expensive, and still human(ish - if you're lucky) :p, with all the ego and mistakes that come with the territory. No-code for simple wiring/boilerplating once good enough/widely adopted enough, will kick our asses. But then again on the opposite side, in many cases business types bring mainly money to the table, leaving the expensive nerds to do the rest, and have fun with their RG machines in the process.

[DistressedDrone]

> No-code for simple wiring/boilerplating once good enough/widely adopted enough, will kick our asses.

By "our asses" I assume you mean programmers'? I don't buy it. People think coding is hard because they think thinking is hard. No-code doesn't remove the latter part, it'll only make things easier for programmers.

If anything it makes getting into programming easier, but that means more programmers not fewer.

[NateEag]

Do not forget the possibility that no-code systems will result in a worse outcome but still technically get the job done, with a lot less sum total thinking required.

Most software is plumbing, not competitive advantage, so it doesn't really matter how good it is if it technically works.

If you doubt that, I point you to the world of enterprise software, where terrible software flourishes and thrives.

I will not be at all surprised if no-code systems eat the bottom of the software market, replacing many software developer jobs.

[jude-]

The history of abstracting the hardware as something easier for people to understand is exactly the history of programming languages.

Wake me up when someone writes a compiler that reliably turns "Hello computer, please make me money" into an executable.