|
|
|
|
|
by js8
729 days ago
|
|
It's fascinating that somebody sees these things as "original". I used to maintain a 40-year old ETL codebase in SAS. IMHO the original low code movement was the 4GL movement from the 70s (and, according to Wikipedia, rapid application development movement from the 90s, things like Visual Basic). I think fundamentally, the problem is that any DSL lives on a design tradeoff spectrum between domain-specificity and programming-generality. There is only so much savings that a generic ETL tool will give you, because it doesn't want to be domain specific. On the other hand, the more domain specific a tool is, the more limited it will be in it's capacity to handle other domains. No amount of graphic or textual interface is gonna save you from this fundamental design tradeoff (it's kind of complexity tradeoff - things inside domain are easy but outside the domain are hard). But then, you can as well handle this tradeoff in a decent library/framework for a general programming language, which is, effectively, a "return to code". Other way to look at it is that we want limited programming languages, because the implicit assumptions make things easier for the reader of the code (the person who wants to understand). However, limitations make things harder for the writer of the code (the person who wants to solve some problem). |
|