[hkleppe]

> My main issue with low-code/no-code is that it attempts to solve the complexity problem, without understanding what "complexity" is.

I get your point. But without low/no-code tools I would argue a lot of simple workflows have to be implemented using code. These usecases, where the technology-side is simple, is a good fit for low/no-code platforms IMO

[chasd00]

The magic will always be in deciding where to stop using low/no-code and start using actual code. domain specific and opinionated low/no-code tools with clear boundaries on what the tool can and can't do would be a good thing but the markets would be small and that's a bad thing.

I've seen teams spend a lot of time in low/no-code tools and either it grows more complex than actual code or they resort to the escape hatch (node that executes user defined code) and the visual tool basically becomes a container for actual code.

Also, the dream usually is put the effectiveness of software developers into the hands of people who are not software developers. However, it never seems to fail that the low/no-code work ends up back in the lap of software developers because of the typical product/project delivery lifecycle.

[to11mtm]

> I've seen teams spend a lot of time in low/no-code tools and either it grows more complex than actual code or they resort to the escape hatch (node that executes user defined code) and the visual tool basically becomes a container for actual code.

The ideal state alluded to is that Dev teams write modules that cleanly 'plug in' to the flowchart mess, but the reality is that a Dev team that can write code at that level (in a modern world, it implies at least an abstract/subconscious understanding of mid-advanced FP-ish concepts, including merging Procedural things like calling the bizarre webservice you're probably integrating with, while striving for idempotency based on the provided args/context.)

At that point, said devs likely are of a skillset they could build a framework for lower TCO, or at the very least are productive enough that they aren't the problem.

[danielvaughn]

Agreed. The cynic in me hears business execs saying “we want non-programmers to be as effective as programmers”, and what I really hear is “we don’t pay these people nearly as much, can we get them to do it instead?”