There are pros and cons to everything. If you're a new developer, or you're making a bare bones CRUD app with simple business logic, low-code is great.

Where it's not great is when you need to add anything new, or requirements change, or if you just want to refactor how something works.

And that's just the mile high view. What I dislike about it from a personal POV is that there's zero information density. With code and an IDE, I can glance at text on the screen and know exactly what's happening. With low-code, I have to drill into countless views, looking at visual flowcharts with variables that are hidden by yet more clicks, in order to piece together what's happening. It's like programming but if you could only look at one word at a time. I *hate* it.

It's "productive" and "quick" to create new apps. Okay sure, great. I don't care about that. I want to be productive when I'm actually maintaining a project, which is what 95% of being a software developer is.

@DoodleDonut what I don't get about it is that making simple crud apps is already very efficient given the right tooling since it can be mostly generated, and then you have a solid base you can build off of

@noiob Absolutely agree. I could design from the ground up any of the low-code projects I've been tasked to work on (my job is backend dev but we've been using a lowcode platform for some other stuff), and it would not be difficult.

The "value" they bring is that other non-devs can contribute, which, to be fair, is value. But, as a developer, I hate it. I feel like I'm forced to make things out of mega-blocks when I could be designing them out of lego.

@DoodleDonut the "value" is that managers understand it /snark