No-Code Fiasco
-
I have been a developer now for almost 40 years, and over those years I have seen several products that was supposed to be a no-code solution. The last fiasco was BizTalk. Supposed to allow non-programmers and analysts create applications. The real truth was that developers had to come in to make this white elephant work by creating, of all things, 'functoids'. Little C# diddies to overcome what could not be done with the so-called no-coding. One of the projects cost over a million dollars from an off-shore company, then required a band of 5-6 .NET developers to try to save it. That failed, and ended up costing about 2 million. The project was scrapped. Interestingly, I looked into some of the Microsoft modules. I found one of them contained about 100 Microsoft GOTO statements! So much for Microsoft standards.
Member 14840496 wrote:
creating, of all things, 'functoids'
Functoids sounds like FUN to me! :laugh: NOT! I decided to duckduckgo functoid because it sounds like something bad -- and when I did I saw BizTalk references. Check out this image that details how simple it is to convert a datetime to a string[^]. :laugh: That's from this article[^]. It's No-Code...until it's NOT! This is all what keeps the IT Whirled spinning. :rolleyes:
-
Member 14840496 wrote:
creating, of all things, 'functoids'
Functoids sounds like FUN to me! :laugh: NOT! I decided to duckduckgo functoid because it sounds like something bad -- and when I did I saw BizTalk references. Check out this image that details how simple it is to convert a datetime to a string[^]. :laugh: That's from this article[^]. It's No-Code...until it's NOT! This is all what keeps the IT Whirled spinning. :rolleyes:
Made my day. The reason they use straight lines in those diagrams is so that they can also call it no-spaghetti code!
Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing. -
I have been a developer now for almost 40 years, and over those years I have seen several products that was supposed to be a no-code solution. The last fiasco was BizTalk. Supposed to allow non-programmers and analysts create applications. The real truth was that developers had to come in to make this white elephant work by creating, of all things, 'functoids'. Little C# diddies to overcome what could not be done with the so-called no-coding. One of the projects cost over a million dollars from an off-shore company, then required a band of 5-6 .NET developers to try to save it. That failed, and ended up costing about 2 million. The project was scrapped. Interestingly, I looked into some of the Microsoft modules. I found one of them contained about 100 Microsoft GOTO statements! So much for Microsoft standards.
Member 14840496 wrote:
BizTalk. Supposed to allow non-programmers and analysts create applications.
:wtf: :wtf: Not sure who told you that. BizTalk is incredibly powerful and complex and was never (as far as I know) meant to be used by non programmers. It has been 10 years since I used it so maybe that has changed, but NO!, it is not meant for any kind of beginner at all. It's incredibly complex.
-
Don't worry, it will all be ok this time as the no-code stuff will be AI powered and it will know exactly what people want to do...
I have read that and similar remarks many times. They never mention the fact that for AI to really do its thing the user(s) must first tell it what they want and that's where the problem lies. That problem is so severe that I am pessimistic about AI-driven no-code solutions ever succeeding.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
-
I have read that and similar remarks many times. They never mention the fact that for AI to really do its thing the user(s) must first tell it what they want and that's where the problem lies. That problem is so severe that I am pessimistic about AI-driven no-code solutions ever succeeding.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
Precisely. The problem would just shift from writing code that does exactly what the customer wants to writing specifications that describe exactly what the customer wants. I doubt the second is any easier than the first. Assuming that the AI was good at understanding natural language, the draft of the specification would be followed by endless, tedious questions like, "Do you mean this here?" and "What should be done if so-and-so happens?" It might well be faster to just WTFC (write the code). :laugh:
Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.<p><a href="https://github.com/GregUtas/robust-services-core/blob/master/README.md">Robust Services Core</a>
<em>The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.</em></p> -
Precisely. The problem would just shift from writing code that does exactly what the customer wants to writing specifications that describe exactly what the customer wants. I doubt the second is any easier than the first. Assuming that the AI was good at understanding natural language, the draft of the specification would be followed by endless, tedious questions like, "Do you mean this here?" and "What should be done if so-and-so happens?" It might well be faster to just WTFC (write the code). :laugh:
Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.Exactly. There will always be work for people with our skills. :java:
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
-
Precisely. The problem would just shift from writing code that does exactly what the customer wants to writing specifications that describe exactly what the customer wants. I doubt the second is any easier than the first. Assuming that the AI was good at understanding natural language, the draft of the specification would be followed by endless, tedious questions like, "Do you mean this here?" and "What should be done if so-and-so happens?" It might well be faster to just WTFC (write the code). :laugh:
Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.Theoretically, the specification part is supposed to be happening now but we all know how well that's going. I had a customer (a large company with two-letter acronym name) tell me once, "I won't know what I want until I see it" which was a direct violation of their own project management guidelines which required approval before any work or procurement began. They were easily the worst customer I have ever had and to this day I refuse to buy any of their products. My attitude toward them was also shaped by being required to use what is the absolutely worst application framework I have ever had the misfortune of using or even reading about. Apparently it was some guy's master's thesis and that's what it looked like - something from academia that should have never have left it. It was a big house-of-cards state machine library where state transitions were performed by throwing an exception. I would have to work really, really hard to think of a more idiotic design.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
-
I have been a developer now for almost 40 years, and over those years I have seen several products that was supposed to be a no-code solution. The last fiasco was BizTalk. Supposed to allow non-programmers and analysts create applications. The real truth was that developers had to come in to make this white elephant work by creating, of all things, 'functoids'. Little C# diddies to overcome what could not be done with the so-called no-coding. One of the projects cost over a million dollars from an off-shore company, then required a band of 5-6 .NET developers to try to save it. That failed, and ended up costing about 2 million. The project was scrapped. Interestingly, I looked into some of the Microsoft modules. I found one of them contained about 100 Microsoft GOTO statements! So much for Microsoft standards.
Well, the in-house-developed rule-based "no code" system I used at one employer (about ten years ago) was developed in VB.net, sooo... :sigh: These things -- including off-the-shelf ETL systems, such as SSIS -- are not intended for use by large enterprises with complex needs and large numbers of highly-skilled developers. They always fall down when the needs are beyond the current capabilities of the system and "someone" has to develop a new module/rule/functoid. The target market is small shops with simpler needs and no ability to hire highly-skilled developers. A business with needs beyond that will always do better by hiring/contracting developers to implement a custom application to do the work. I'm sure things go like this... Client: We can do A, B, and C just fine, but we need something which will help us with X, Y, and Z. Consultant: Absolutely, we can do that. Six months later... Consultant: Here you go. Client: But that does only A, B, and C, which we can do ourselves already. It does nothing for X, Y, and Z, which is what we hired you to do. Consultant: Well, we had to address the low-hanging fruit first.
-
I have been a developer now for almost 40 years, and over those years I have seen several products that was supposed to be a no-code solution. The last fiasco was BizTalk. Supposed to allow non-programmers and analysts create applications. The real truth was that developers had to come in to make this white elephant work by creating, of all things, 'functoids'. Little C# diddies to overcome what could not be done with the so-called no-coding. One of the projects cost over a million dollars from an off-shore company, then required a band of 5-6 .NET developers to try to save it. That failed, and ended up costing about 2 million. The project was scrapped. Interestingly, I looked into some of the Microsoft modules. I found one of them contained about 100 Microsoft GOTO statements! So much for Microsoft standards.
-
Well, the in-house-developed rule-based "no code" system I used at one employer (about ten years ago) was developed in VB.net, sooo... :sigh: These things -- including off-the-shelf ETL systems, such as SSIS -- are not intended for use by large enterprises with complex needs and large numbers of highly-skilled developers. They always fall down when the needs are beyond the current capabilities of the system and "someone" has to develop a new module/rule/functoid. The target market is small shops with simpler needs and no ability to hire highly-skilled developers. A business with needs beyond that will always do better by hiring/contracting developers to implement a custom application to do the work. I'm sure things go like this... Client: We can do A, B, and C just fine, but we need something which will help us with X, Y, and Z. Consultant: Absolutely, we can do that. Six months later... Consultant: Here you go. Client: But that does only A, B, and C, which we can do ourselves already. It does nothing for X, Y, and Z, which is what we hired you to do. Consultant: Well, we had to address the low-hanging fruit first.
You are absolutely correct. But some execs think they can cut costs using no-code, only to find out...woops. Any employee/consultant should point out to supv., mgrs., etc. the risks, and come with a warning label....'CAUTION: USE OF THIS TOOL MAY CAUSE ENHANCEMENT HEADACHES. PROCEED AT YOUR OWN RISK'. Most of the time, even with fully developed apps., users start the BTW we would like....A, B, and C; which may be out of reach of a no-code solution; especially, as you said, in larger companies. The other issue is, I have never seen a no-code solution stand the test of time, and that includes BizTalk. I will not count SSIS because it is not a UI RAD development environment.
