Low-Code-No-Code Bloatware
-
Reading the Chris Maunder comment on the downward spiral of the industry, and along with the latest article by O'Reilly on low-code democratization of programming seems to never end. As with Chris, I have been doing programming since the first Radio Shack computers came out; and before that, using IBM punch cards to create wiring lists, paper tape readers to load programs, as well as cassette tapes. I guess people are doomed to repeat bad things when they do not have a history of the industry. I can remember low code apps. being sold decades ago. All flops. For a later lesson, take Microsoft's BizTalk. Preached as enabling power users and analysts to create programs without code. Like a company I worked for that spend 2 million dollars on a BizTalk project that failed because the gazillion objects it created simply choked the databases so bad that the throughput was like snail poop. After hiring additional consultants and create hundreds of 'functoids', the project was scrapped. For those not knowing what a functoid is, it's chunks of c# code used to do things that BizTalk could not accomplish in its so-called low-code IDE. All this relates the infamous 'black-box' approach using some of Billy-Bob's code that is supposed to work. But what happens when you find it not working? Google to see if Handy-Andy's code will work? Low-code, and especially no-code solutions of any magnitude, by default, are bloatware. As with BizTalk (huge bloatware), it usually chokes through-put.
But they have their use. Mostly to create consultancy jobs to fix their... products. Also some of them are actually good, i.e. Simulink, especially in automotive systems paired with AutoSAR. Most of the code is manually written but the entire platform can be designed and configured with a human readable diagram.
GCS d--(d-) s-/++ a C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
-
Reading the Chris Maunder comment on the downward spiral of the industry, and along with the latest article by O'Reilly on low-code democratization of programming seems to never end. As with Chris, I have been doing programming since the first Radio Shack computers came out; and before that, using IBM punch cards to create wiring lists, paper tape readers to load programs, as well as cassette tapes. I guess people are doomed to repeat bad things when they do not have a history of the industry. I can remember low code apps. being sold decades ago. All flops. For a later lesson, take Microsoft's BizTalk. Preached as enabling power users and analysts to create programs without code. Like a company I worked for that spend 2 million dollars on a BizTalk project that failed because the gazillion objects it created simply choked the databases so bad that the throughput was like snail poop. After hiring additional consultants and create hundreds of 'functoids', the project was scrapped. For those not knowing what a functoid is, it's chunks of c# code used to do things that BizTalk could not accomplish in its so-called low-code IDE. All this relates the infamous 'black-box' approach using some of Billy-Bob's code that is supposed to work. But what happens when you find it not working? Google to see if Handy-Andy's code will work? Low-code, and especially no-code solutions of any magnitude, by default, are bloatware. As with BizTalk (huge bloatware), it usually chokes through-put.
Member 14840496 wrote:
BizTalk
BizTalk, in simple terms, is used for moving data around, transforming it, importing, exporting, etc. It's low-code in that there are lots of built-in objects. But yes, it is highly complex and I have used it successfully so my guess is you may have done something wrong. Mendix is a no-code platform that I have used and it can do just about anything any other platform can do. Some of it is very fast, like building forms for example. Business Logic can be a little slower to develop compared to .Net. But I find it silly how many developers do not realize how powerful some of the low/no code platforms are. They will change this industry. You won't build a google.com with one but they can do just about everything else.
-
Reading the Chris Maunder comment on the downward spiral of the industry, and along with the latest article by O'Reilly on low-code democratization of programming seems to never end. As with Chris, I have been doing programming since the first Radio Shack computers came out; and before that, using IBM punch cards to create wiring lists, paper tape readers to load programs, as well as cassette tapes. I guess people are doomed to repeat bad things when they do not have a history of the industry. I can remember low code apps. being sold decades ago. All flops. For a later lesson, take Microsoft's BizTalk. Preached as enabling power users and analysts to create programs without code. Like a company I worked for that spend 2 million dollars on a BizTalk project that failed because the gazillion objects it created simply choked the databases so bad that the throughput was like snail poop. After hiring additional consultants and create hundreds of 'functoids', the project was scrapped. For those not knowing what a functoid is, it's chunks of c# code used to do things that BizTalk could not accomplish in its so-called low-code IDE. All this relates the infamous 'black-box' approach using some of Billy-Bob's code that is supposed to work. But what happens when you find it not working? Google to see if Handy-Andy's code will work? Low-code, and especially no-code solutions of any magnitude, by default, are bloatware. As with BizTalk (huge bloatware), it usually chokes through-put.
I concur. I've been using SSIS for the last ten years -- leaving the easy stuff to my colleagues while I implement the difficult stuff in C# "Script Tasks". Before that, I was on a contract where they used an in-house "rule-based" system -- with a GUI to define which rules to use in what order, branching, etc. What if I need a new rule? Write it in VB. It's not much different in SQL Server either -- I write a lot of CLR functions in C# to deal with the hard stuff. Off-the-shelf tools contend only with low-hanging fruit. If all you have is low-hanging fruit, then an off-the-shelf tool may be sufficient. But no enterprise of significant complexity has only low-hanging fruit, so highly-skilled developers will still be required. But by all means let the highly-skilled developers concentrate on the difficult tasks while low-skilled developers work on the easy tasks in an off-the-shelf tool.
-
Member 14840496 wrote:
BizTalk
BizTalk, in simple terms, is used for moving data around, transforming it, importing, exporting, etc. It's low-code in that there are lots of built-in objects. But yes, it is highly complex and I have used it successfully so my guess is you may have done something wrong. Mendix is a no-code platform that I have used and it can do just about anything any other platform can do. Some of it is very fast, like building forms for example. Business Logic can be a little slower to develop compared to .Net. But I find it silly how many developers do not realize how powerful some of the low/no code platforms are. They will change this industry. You won't build a google.com with one but they can do just about everything else.
Well I didn't build it. It was first contracted to an outside company, then outside consultants were brought in to try and get it working. They wanted me to join the team, but after looking at the project, I told them that is was doomed to fail. I did, however, replace it with a C# program.
-
But they have their use. Mostly to create consultancy jobs to fix their... products. Also some of them are actually good, i.e. Simulink, especially in automotive systems paired with AutoSAR. Most of the code is manually written but the entire platform can be designed and configured with a human readable diagram.
GCS d--(d-) s-/++ a C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
Your first sentence is absolutely correct. https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/smiley\_smile.gif
-
Reading the Chris Maunder comment on the downward spiral of the industry, and along with the latest article by O'Reilly on low-code democratization of programming seems to never end. As with Chris, I have been doing programming since the first Radio Shack computers came out; and before that, using IBM punch cards to create wiring lists, paper tape readers to load programs, as well as cassette tapes. I guess people are doomed to repeat bad things when they do not have a history of the industry. I can remember low code apps. being sold decades ago. All flops. For a later lesson, take Microsoft's BizTalk. Preached as enabling power users and analysts to create programs without code. Like a company I worked for that spend 2 million dollars on a BizTalk project that failed because the gazillion objects it created simply choked the databases so bad that the throughput was like snail poop. After hiring additional consultants and create hundreds of 'functoids', the project was scrapped. For those not knowing what a functoid is, it's chunks of c# code used to do things that BizTalk could not accomplish in its so-called low-code IDE. All this relates the infamous 'black-box' approach using some of Billy-Bob's code that is supposed to work. But what happens when you find it not working? Google to see if Handy-Andy's code will work? Low-code, and especially no-code solutions of any magnitude, by default, are bloatware. As with BizTalk (huge bloatware), it usually chokes through-put.
Member 14840496 wrote:
All this relates the infamous 'black-box' approach using some of Billy-Bob's code that is supposed to work. But what happens when you find it not working? Google to see if Handy-Andy's code will work?
Get thee to QA, and you will see both that in action, and the other solution: when Billy-Bob's YouTube tutorial code doesn't work, try to get CP or SO to fix it so you can call it your own work ... :sigh: To a large extent, I blame governments and Apple: the former for assuming anyone can code so making it compulsorily for students, and the later for making said students assume they are computing geniuses for being able to get to Google and FaceBook ...
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony "Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
I concur. I've been using SSIS for the last ten years -- leaving the easy stuff to my colleagues while I implement the difficult stuff in C# "Script Tasks". Before that, I was on a contract where they used an in-house "rule-based" system -- with a GUI to define which rules to use in what order, branching, etc. What if I need a new rule? Write it in VB. It's not much different in SQL Server either -- I write a lot of CLR functions in C# to deal with the hard stuff. Off-the-shelf tools contend only with low-hanging fruit. If all you have is low-hanging fruit, then an off-the-shelf tool may be sufficient. But no enterprise of significant complexity has only low-hanging fruit, so highly-skilled developers will still be required. But by all means let the highly-skilled developers concentrate on the difficult tasks while low-skilled developers work on the easy tasks in an off-the-shelf tool.
Your statement "What if I need a new rule?" is precisely the problem, and it happens all the time. How do you write a new rule with a black box? Users are very rarely satisfied with the status quo. I wish I had a dollar for all the times I heard "Can we add this?", "Can we change that?". In the real business world, it never ends.
-
Well I didn't build it. It was first contracted to an outside company, then outside consultants were brought in to try and get it working. They wanted me to join the team, but after looking at the project, I told them that is was doomed to fail. I did, however, replace it with a C# program.
Member 14840496 wrote:
It was first contracted to an outside company, then outside consultants were brought in to try and get it working.
It is a very complex product. We had to hire a consultant to come in and train us on how to use it and even then it was not easy.
-
Member 14840496 wrote:
All this relates the infamous 'black-box' approach using some of Billy-Bob's code that is supposed to work. But what happens when you find it not working? Google to see if Handy-Andy's code will work?
Get thee to QA, and you will see both that in action, and the other solution: when Billy-Bob's YouTube tutorial code doesn't work, try to get CP or SO to fix it so you can call it your own work ... :sigh: To a large extent, I blame governments and Apple: the former for assuming anyone can code so making it compulsorily for students, and the later for making said students assume they are computing geniuses for being able to get to Google and FaceBook ...
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony "Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
Member 14840496 wrote:
It was first contracted to an outside company, then outside consultants were brought in to try and get it working.
It is a very complex product. We had to hire a consultant to come in and train us on how to use it and even then it was not easy.
Well, in the training class I had, the instructor couldn't explain why some of the labs didn't work. That's a bad indicator right there. Months later I flew to Tampa because the BizTalk project they were building wasn't working. When we met in the room with the numerous programmers, they had literally printed out the workflow of the project and taped it to the walls. Note, I said 'walls', not wall. It went 1/3 of the first wall (about 6 feet), around the corner down the entire next wall (about 15 feet), and around the corner on the next wall for another 3 feet or so. It was all I could do not to break into hysterics. All I could think was, are you people serious?
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
being able to get to Google
Not a skill you see being used much by the QA script kiddies.
I'm assuming they used it to find the code they copy'n'pasted. After that it all goes blank for them ... :laugh:
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony "Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt -
I'm assuming they used it to find the code they copy'n'pasted. After that it all goes blank for them ... :laugh:
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony "Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
OriginalGriff wrote:
I'm assuming they used it to find the code they copy'n'pasted. After that it all goes blank for them ...
- Post a question in QA 2) Use link in response 3) Cut/Paste 4) If it works continue if not goto 1
The less you need, the more you have. Even a blind squirrel gets a nut...occasionally. JaxCoder.com
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
I'm assuming they used it to find the code they copy'n'pasted. After that it all goes blank for them ...
- Post a question in QA 2) Use link in response 3) Cut/Paste 4) If it works continue if not goto 1
The less you need, the more you have. Even a blind squirrel gets a nut...occasionally. JaxCoder.com
So sad and so true... :sigh:
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
Well, in the training class I had, the instructor couldn't explain why some of the labs didn't work. That's a bad indicator right there. Months later I flew to Tampa because the BizTalk project they were building wasn't working. When we met in the room with the numerous programmers, they had literally printed out the workflow of the project and taped it to the walls. Note, I said 'walls', not wall. It went 1/3 of the first wall (about 6 feet), around the corner down the entire next wall (about 15 feet), and around the corner on the next wall for another 3 feet or so. It was all I could do not to break into hysterics. All I could think was, are you people serious?
Member 14840496 wrote:
in the training class I had, the instructor couldn't explain why some of the labs didn't work. That's a bad indicator right there.
:laugh: :thumbsup:
-
I concur. I've been using SSIS for the last ten years -- leaving the easy stuff to my colleagues while I implement the difficult stuff in C# "Script Tasks". Before that, I was on a contract where they used an in-house "rule-based" system -- with a GUI to define which rules to use in what order, branching, etc. What if I need a new rule? Write it in VB. It's not much different in SQL Server either -- I write a lot of CLR functions in C# to deal with the hard stuff. Off-the-shelf tools contend only with low-hanging fruit. If all you have is low-hanging fruit, then an off-the-shelf tool may be sufficient. But no enterprise of significant complexity has only low-hanging fruit, so highly-skilled developers will still be required. But by all means let the highly-skilled developers concentrate on the difficult tasks while low-skilled developers work on the easy tasks in an off-the-shelf tool.
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
I write a lot of CLR functions in C#
Crikey in all my years of writing TSQL I never had to resort to the CLR, I guess I was only doing the simple stuff.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity - RAH I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
-
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
I write a lot of CLR functions in C#
Crikey in all my years of writing TSQL I never had to resort to the CLR, I guess I was only doing the simple stuff.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity - RAH I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
Blessings counted.
-
Reading the Chris Maunder comment on the downward spiral of the industry, and along with the latest article by O'Reilly on low-code democratization of programming seems to never end. As with Chris, I have been doing programming since the first Radio Shack computers came out; and before that, using IBM punch cards to create wiring lists, paper tape readers to load programs, as well as cassette tapes. I guess people are doomed to repeat bad things when they do not have a history of the industry. I can remember low code apps. being sold decades ago. All flops. For a later lesson, take Microsoft's BizTalk. Preached as enabling power users and analysts to create programs without code. Like a company I worked for that spend 2 million dollars on a BizTalk project that failed because the gazillion objects it created simply choked the databases so bad that the throughput was like snail poop. After hiring additional consultants and create hundreds of 'functoids', the project was scrapped. For those not knowing what a functoid is, it's chunks of c# code used to do things that BizTalk could not accomplish in its so-called low-code IDE. All this relates the infamous 'black-box' approach using some of Billy-Bob's code that is supposed to work. But what happens when you find it not working? Google to see if Handy-Andy's code will work? Low-code, and especially no-code solutions of any magnitude, by default, are bloatware. As with BizTalk (huge bloatware), it usually chokes through-put.
"Kids are cute when they think they invent stuff" comes to mind rather often when on online forums. I don't think all of them are younglings never seen anything, I rather think it's the general attention span of a geriatric fly. Or maybe the desire for drama. That, of course, is best served by repeating it.
-
Reading the Chris Maunder comment on the downward spiral of the industry, and along with the latest article by O'Reilly on low-code democratization of programming seems to never end. As with Chris, I have been doing programming since the first Radio Shack computers came out; and before that, using IBM punch cards to create wiring lists, paper tape readers to load programs, as well as cassette tapes. I guess people are doomed to repeat bad things when they do not have a history of the industry. I can remember low code apps. being sold decades ago. All flops. For a later lesson, take Microsoft's BizTalk. Preached as enabling power users and analysts to create programs without code. Like a company I worked for that spend 2 million dollars on a BizTalk project that failed because the gazillion objects it created simply choked the databases so bad that the throughput was like snail poop. After hiring additional consultants and create hundreds of 'functoids', the project was scrapped. For those not knowing what a functoid is, it's chunks of c# code used to do things that BizTalk could not accomplish in its so-called low-code IDE. All this relates the infamous 'black-box' approach using some of Billy-Bob's code that is supposed to work. But what happens when you find it not working? Google to see if Handy-Andy's code will work? Low-code, and especially no-code solutions of any magnitude, by default, are bloatware. As with BizTalk (huge bloatware), it usually chokes through-put.
Is that the article citing how Excel is a great example of low-code democratisation? Reading that my first thought was " had this clown ever looked at any Excel spreadsheets designed by the 'democratised'"? Also, our favoured software supplier is very fond of providing solutions which have 'low-code' front ends for business numpties to 'develop' with (to protect them from doing any real harm) and they invariably make it impossible to do much more than change the colour of a font.... But hey!, the 'potential' is there for you to use... And, of course, Management (who will never, ever have to use it), buy into the crap and expect wonders from staff who have no idea what the hell they're doing....:mad:
-
Is that the article citing how Excel is a great example of low-code democratisation? Reading that my first thought was " had this clown ever looked at any Excel spreadsheets designed by the 'democratised'"? Also, our favoured software supplier is very fond of providing solutions which have 'low-code' front ends for business numpties to 'develop' with (to protect them from doing any real harm) and they invariably make it impossible to do much more than change the colour of a font.... But hey!, the 'potential' is there for you to use... And, of course, Management (who will never, ever have to use it), buy into the crap and expect wonders from staff who have no idea what the hell they're doing....:mad:
I thought similar things when reading that article. I once wrote a bit of code to use a database for powerlifting meets to replace a ghastly Excel solution they use. Their response? We don't want our members in a database :doh: So at every meet we copy the spreadsheet and use it and I dream of database structure and easy apps. Oh well.
-
Reading the Chris Maunder comment on the downward spiral of the industry, and along with the latest article by O'Reilly on low-code democratization of programming seems to never end. As with Chris, I have been doing programming since the first Radio Shack computers came out; and before that, using IBM punch cards to create wiring lists, paper tape readers to load programs, as well as cassette tapes. I guess people are doomed to repeat bad things when they do not have a history of the industry. I can remember low code apps. being sold decades ago. All flops. For a later lesson, take Microsoft's BizTalk. Preached as enabling power users and analysts to create programs without code. Like a company I worked for that spend 2 million dollars on a BizTalk project that failed because the gazillion objects it created simply choked the databases so bad that the throughput was like snail poop. After hiring additional consultants and create hundreds of 'functoids', the project was scrapped. For those not knowing what a functoid is, it's chunks of c# code used to do things that BizTalk could not accomplish in its so-called low-code IDE. All this relates the infamous 'black-box' approach using some of Billy-Bob's code that is supposed to work. But what happens when you find it not working? Google to see if Handy-Andy's code will work? Low-code, and especially no-code solutions of any magnitude, by default, are bloatware. As with BizTalk (huge bloatware), it usually chokes through-put.
I couldn't agree more and I have been programming probably as long as you have. I remember the efforts with "Magic PC", a product that promised to eliminate code altogether. A similar product has recently appeared but I have heard little about it's success. I also attended a seminar where Oracle demonstrated its "no-code" database application development environment. It started out well and good but as the demonstration application became ever more complicated, so too did the tasks that one had to perform top build it. About every 10 years, someone in the industry comes up with a new product that promises to be the panacea for businesses for the elimination of developers and software engineers. To date, not a single product has ever worked... and probably none ever will. This is because complex tasks require thought and innovation, which is something outside the box of these fads...
Steve Naidamast Sr. Software Engineer Black Falcon Software, Inc. blackfalconsoftware@outlook.com
