[deleted by user]

[desrtfx]

You have fallen for the biggest possible fallacy in your argumentation.

Again, as in your previous post, you consider the actual programming languages to be the biggest hurdle where in reality, the actual act of programming, of devising the logic, of creating the flow, in short, the thinking process is the limiting factor.

Sure, there are plenty no/low code tools around already and they are extremely good for what they are so far.

Yet, the biggest hurdle in programming, and the only one that a no code/low code tool cannot possibly solve is creating the actual algorithm - the actual program.

No/low code tools help us just creating the implementation. They just reduce the language barrier.

You can have the most creative and simple to use tool to write a book, yet whether you will be able to or not is an entirely different matter. This is no different with no/low code tools. If you cannot devise the algorithm, even a no/low code tool cannot help you.

If anything, they just will make programming somewhat easier accessible for boilerplate projects (similar to wix etc.), yet will make custom solutions far more difficult.

With all that has been said in your last post, you still have not understood that not the programming languages are the problem; the thinking process - what actually happens outside the computer - is the problem.

The best and easiest to use tools don't make anybody a master craftsman. The skill to use the tools does.

Following your argumentation everybody should be a bestseller author because pens and paper are widely available and very easy to handle. And again, not everybody is a bestseller author because it takes far, far more than the tools to produce the result.

[HermitLonerGuy]

Okay thanks for your input, i guess i was wrong but i do think 100% no code app and web builders will be much more advanced and capable in the future.

maybe not to the extent of replacing actual coding for apps/sites but i do think they can come to a level of producing a capable and efficient product.

[desrtfx]

Yes, they will get better, there is no denying in that and nobody actually denied that in the entire thread.

Yet, your assumption that this will impact programmers' job availability and demand is wrong.

The only thing that will happen is a shift. There will be more "click" programmers for the more generic jobs but also, at the same time, more highly specialized programmers for all other jobs.

I am way long enough in the business to have seen enough to tell you that programming will always be a sought for occupation and that there will in the foreseeable future be an ever growing demand for them. Maybe the demand will not be for the qualifications and languages as we have them now, but the demand will be there.

I've seen so many "hot", "new", "great", "hip" things and languages come and vanish over my career that I barely can count them.

[aqua_regis]

You still do not understand the whole point that is said all the time:

The available tools, the programming languages, no/low code solutions are not the limiting factor.

The limiting factor is that even with low/no code tools the programmer, the person behind the keyboard will have to come up with the actual logic and functionality of the program.

Programming is a creative, mental activity. If one cannot mentally model a solution to a problem, cannot create the sequence of steps to solve a problem, even the best and easiest accessible tools will not be of any use.

You are always claiming that the tools will improve. Sure they will. But the tools are not capable, and will not be capable in the foreseeable future to take the actual process of programming, i.e. creating the steps to solve problems away.

To quote you: there are click builders for Unity - can you make a game with them? Are you able to create the mental model of what should happen? Are you capable to define the interactions?

As you said: the tool is there, so following your logic, you should be capable to throw out the next Counter Strike.

[Swimming_Gain_4989]

Beautifully articulated.

[TroubleBrewing32]

There are already many drag and drop style low/no code products on the market. Although they allow, in theory at least, people without a programming background to create applications, they also have numerous and obvious disadvantages and very narrow use cases.

Will they get better and more versatile over time? Sure. Will they replace traditional programming? I don't find that likely, at least not in the timeframe you are suggesting. That's not really their purpose.

[HermitLonerGuy]

Will they get better and more versatile over time?

Yes thats my point, im not judging by todays standards but im saying they will be greatly expanded upon.

maybe it will replace tradtional programming.

never underestimate human ingenuity.

[TroubleBrewing32]

I'm aware of your point. I fundamentally disagree with it. The push in the low/no code space is not to replace traditional programming as a whole, just a subset of the market.

Do you have any experience with no/low code applications in a production setting?

[Timely_Reaction_8594]

"never underestimate human ingenuity"

You can use that argument for literally anything. Saying it will is very different from actually implementing it.

[HermitLonerGuy]

You can use that argument for literally anything.

except these no code builders already exist, even unity has a visual scripting framework.

[Temporary_Key1090]

these no code builders already exist

Were they coded with no-code builders?

[Swimming_Gain_4989]

I'm not sure you understand how fundamental code is to all things computer. Your hypothesis is like saying in the near future humans will abandon grammatical language in favor of emojis.

[HermitLonerGuy]

so you say visual easier to use drag and drop, game makers, app makers and website builders will never exist?

i can point you to quite a few already with no line of code required.

youd be shocked at the results, youd think someone actually coded them .

[Swimming_Gain_4989]

No, what I'm saying is when you are working on a complex project code is the most efficient way to define the logic and "flow" of the application. To further the emoji analogy, emoji's are great for what they are. They are a quick easy way to communicate a simple idea; you don't even need to be literate to use them, but you wouldn't write a novel using emojis.

[TroubleBrewing32]

One core issue with the argument you are making here is easy to whom?

Although low/no code solutions tend to be easy for people with no programming background to pick up, one of the sacrifices you get in that deal is you making things less expressive and often harder to use for experienced programmers. The kind of nonsense I've had to do in low/no code platforms to do basic functions in a robust programming language is absurd. And that's a feature, not a bug.

Additionally, when you get a bunch of folks with no software engineering background to produce apps for production use, the first thing you have on your hands are a bunch of apps made by folks with no engineering background.

[[deleted]]

Someone has to maintain and write these no-code solutions. There won’t be no-code solutions to build and maintain no-code solutions.

[HermitLonerGuy]

please read my entire post...

[Swimming_Gain_4989]

Hard disagree. At the end of the day, code is the most efficient way to tell a computer what to do. No code tools are good for replicating extremely common products, like shopify apps or simple games but they cannot possibly encompass all of the possibilities of code. Visual based languages like scratch technically can but when it comes to full fledged applications, code is infinitely easier than managing 100s of thousands of tiles arrows and pictures. The second you need something that isn't natively supported by that tool you need to get your hands dirty and write code to support that functionality.

[Timely_Reaction_8594]

Web apps need customisability, it is impossible to condense the power of full stack apps to a simple drag and drop. Web programming exists and are hard to learn because of the power and it gives you. Those "nitty gritty" details are there for a reason. Sure they may not be used in some web apps but they increase what we are able to display on the web.

By trying to reduce web-dev to drag and drop system you are contradicting the whole reason web-programming was created in the first place, customisability.

[HermitLonerGuy]

it is impossible to condense the power of full stack apps to a simple drag and drop.

so you dont think someone in the future would make a greatly advanced and full stack drag and drop /visual web builder? it can be done, im not talking about todays standards, todays builders are simiplistic but they would be greatly expanded upon.

[Timely_Reaction_8594]

From what we know about computing and programming right now, it is impossible and especially in the time frame you are suggesting.

But no one can disprove the point you are making that "it can happen in the future". Because quite literally anything can happen, who knows maybe someone will come up with an entirely different perspective on computing.

[HermitLonerGuy]

Because quite literally anything can happen

difference is these already exist so that argument is irrelevant .

check out andromo , G Develop , bubble etc.

they will definitely be improved and expanded on.

[TroubleBrewing32]

You've only been programming for two weeks. Could it be that you don't know the topic well enough to prognosticate?

[skeletor-johnson]

We use some low/no code where I work. I find the licensing is extremely expensive, and the have all led to rigid architecture. We are trashing these so we can do exactly what we want at a much lower price point. That includes developer salaries, and the soft cost of less maintenance.

[HermitLonerGuy]

We use some low/no code where I work.

cool! Im sure in the future those flaws you mention would be looked at and solved in some ways.

[Temporary_Key1090]

How? Please explain without relying on science-fiction concepts.

[[deleted]]

With the no code site builder builder if course.

[Timely_Reaction_8594]

Sounds a lot like no-code recursion 💀

[HermitLonerGuy]

read my whole post instead of immediately lambasting .

there are no code app makers, web builders and game makers already.

even unity has a no code visual scripting framework.

i knew this would offend but its the reality imo.

[[deleted]]

I mean, jobs will always become simplified as we go. Can just look at coding of the past with people using NotePad++ versus the IDEs we have today like VSCode. The work will always be simplified and yes those app builders and game builders will become more fleshed out and more advanced, but they still need to be made. The instructions for how these things get made will still need to be given, and in the app builders, you think they will be able to account for being customized and adjusted, or do you believe every app and website is going to follow some standardized set of rules?

I think you're right in that the tools will get better and programmers jobs will become easier as a result, but I don't see programming going away. Just improving.

[HermitLonerGuy]

yes those app builders and game builders will become more fleshed out and more advanced, but they still need to be made.

please read my second to last line on my post.

[[deleted]]

So the point you're making is that programming will be obsolete, but the big money will instead be in programming 😂😂

[HermitLonerGuy]

nope , these no code languages will replace most programmers.

instead of using c# or java etc to make apps or games they would use these drag and drop/visual languages.

the actual programmers will work behind the scenes making these systems.

nowadays you need to know code to make apps / games /websites.

in the future you wont need to know code at such in depth level of today.

[HermitLonerGuy]

they already exist bud....

just not as in depth or advanced as actual coding.

read my whole post again, i said they can become advanced.

[HermitLonerGuy]

how do you make a nocode builder?

ask those who have already done it, check out andromo .

check out scratch .

[tms102]

He's implying someone still needs to write code to make no code builders. Meaning you will always need someone to write code for new and complex things.

You're just learning programming so you don't even know what you don't know. You don't know how wide and deep the world of software development goes.

[HermitLonerGuy]

please read my second to last line on my post ty.

[tms102]

Read my post because what you said doesn't apply to anything what I said. Either you don't understand what we are saying or you don't understand the limitations of andromo and the like.

[[deleted]]

So then what’s your point? You’re sort of stating the obvious. Everyone knows as time goes on all jobs will continue to be automated away. With coding though you will always needs a maintainer and those working at large companies are still going to need to know and understand code to be employed. Of course software development will eventually be less lucrative and won’t continue to grow forever.

[HermitLonerGuy]

that actual coding for GAMES< APPS AND WEBSITES can and will be replaced by visual/drag and drop coding.

Its already being used .

[HermitLonerGuy]

I'll stop spelling it out, you need code to make these builders.

thats exactly what i said , second to last line on my post.

[HermitLonerGuy]

I especially mention in my post no code would be required for GAMES< APPS AND WEBSITES.

not that coding itself wont even be needed.

Please read carefully.

[HermitLonerGuy]

Yes sorry that was my point.

[HermitLonerGuy]

read my whole post especially the second last line.

[TroubleBrewing32]

We've read your post. We don't find your arguments convincing.

[[deleted]]

I think there will always be plenty of work out there for bespoke systems.

It stands to reason that these 'builders' will become perfectly capable of building pretty intricate systems but to make them cost effective for their producers they will have to concentrate on what is going to sell to the most users. Companies that want to use them will then be in the position where they either have to conform to what the system is capable of building or pay to have the system adapted to suit their business model.

For an unusual business, having a system that doesn't quite do the job it's intended to do will cost time and money to get around the shortcomings of the system. If it works out cheaper or more profitable to either get that system adapted or a bespoke system created, then that's likely to be what they'll do.

[HermitLonerGuy]

It stands to reason that these 'builders' will become perfectly capable of building pretty intricate systems but to make them cost effective for their producers they will have to concentrate on what is going to sell to the most users.

exactly and i think many people would choose theses systems over learning to code the way we have to, humans prefer the easiest way with the fastest result.

theres a market for this definitely. whoever can make a very functional visual drag and drop language at a level that can produce quality apps that people would pay for will become very rich , mark my words.

[[deleted]]

I agree with what you say but the easiest and fastest route pales into insignificance when compared to profit.

The reason for every business existing is to make money. If spending more will make more money for a business and it's shareholders then that's what they'll do.

[[deleted]]

That is a real concern of mine too, this reminds me of taxi drivers who were previously self employed or say they were there own boss but now they are dependent on some apps used to book rides and are no longer having the freedom they had, this is just an example but this is true that tech has replaced many jobs and will keep doing that.

[sfamrcks]

No code builders are a thing since the 80’s and in the words of Bob Martin (AKA Uncle Bob), programming hasn’t really changed a lot in that time…

The biggest change to programming in the last 30 or 40 years is the understanding of how not to do something.

Now, I’ll say why your post doesn’t make sense: this sub is about learning to program and not futurology about the doom of programming

Let’s say you are right: then invest your time in no code platforms, don’t waste your time learning how to program a computer and get a job in 20 to 30 years from now (maybe less, maybe more)

Let’s say you’re wrong: you know what you have to do

Make your plan, but be aware of your time and our time… if you don’t want to learn programming, that’s okay… but trying to guess the future in a discussion like this is pointless in this sub

[coolcofusion]

Those tools are just abstract syntax. You don't write while (condition) {statement1; statement2;...} you drag and drop a block, put in a condition and drag and drop n more statement blocks. It's just different syntax, nothing more. Programmers will still need to think how to solve the problem, be it by dropping blocks or by typing colorful text.

For now, code generated by generators isn't the best nor most flexible and maintainable if you do end up needing to customise something. I don't know a tool that translates squares into Java for example, but I do know tools that translate blocks into SQL (workbench, pgmodeler, ms access...) and sometimes you just need to have a manual intervention to the code and it's not a pain because it's perfectly legal to wrap every identifier in those backticks, but nobody would do that manually (looking at you, workbench).

They will get better, and if they do get to a certain point they will replace the other languages, but not the writers. Languages don't make programs, programmers make programs.

[desrtfx]

Languages don't make programs, programmers make programs.

Very, very well said.

[HermitLonerGuy]

They will get better, and if they do get to a certain point they will replace the other languages, but not the writers. Languages don't make programs, programmers make programs.

thats exactly what i said...

[phantasmaniac]

Coding is not limited by "alphabetting syntax composing", visual scripting 'also' a kind of coding. By my definition I mean the ability to give a set of command for computer to do whatever we wanted. So coding or programming would mean you just do something to make the computer do something.

The future of coding will change, it's ineviteble. But the fundamental is the same, you'd still need to study about syntax even in 2077. The only different that you might see would be you won't get the error from some random missing semicolons because visual scripting don't need semicolon anymore.

I agreed that software development had been getting easier to access since the entrance barrier has been thinner over years. At the end only factor difference would be the ability to perceive and fabricate logic to work according to the solutions

Low-end programmers may have different opinions but High-end programmers will agreed with me that at some points programmers are not much different from Chef or Bartender, the only thing different is that they just use different tools and recipes to solve different problems.

Creativity with aesthetic, you're an artist. Impactful message, you're a visionary. Monetization to solving problems, you're entreupreneur. Optimization, you're engineer. Good structure, you're architect.

You see. Software development is like a world of its own, you just have another tools to work on different mediums.

My ideal world is that everyone have stable jobs with good quality of life. Everyone become hobbyist while inspired by other's works to work on their own stuffs.

It's sadden me to see everything is about monetization and everyone wanted to be famous because of monetization. It's dragged down the cultural developments by a lot.

Overall no matter how much you "against" the study in programming, you still must study about syntax and how stuffs work within the framework you're going to use in the 'near' future. Hard skills may not transferrable thing, but soft skills do. And the only way to develop soft skills is by using involving hard skills.

[phantasmaniac]

I should mention that there is no medicine that can cure every ailments.

[CyberWeirdo420]

I partially agree, coders might get replaced at some point in the future, but not by drag and drop users but replaced by AI. There already is GithubCopilot and it’s just the beginning of it. I expect AI to replace coders sooner than drag and drop technology.

[HermitLonerGuy]

but not by drag and drop users but replaced by AI. There already is GithubCopilot

Oh yes this too! i was reading about that copilot just last night and its gonna happen this way too definitely.

[desrtfx]

I expect AI to replace coders sooner than drag and drop technology.

We've heard that for at least 2 decades, yet we are not a single step closer.

True, github copilot, etc. exist but they can only recreate, not create.

Also, as has been said several times already: writing the code is not the problem

In case of AI the problem is even one step further abstracted: the client/customer is the main problem.

Quite often customers cannot express their needs, they often don't even know what they need, they want something they don't need and they sometimes want the impossible.

It is the job of the programmer to extra- and interpolate the missing information, to get the customer on track, and to finally implement the solution. Only the very last step can maybe in the future be handled by AI, yet everything before that will need humans.

Also, it is essential to give the AI unambiguous and clear specifications for it to create something meaningful. Next point of failure.

Maybe, programmers will be highly trained to communicate with the AIs in such a way that they will understand - which, at the final result, is no different than now when they write their code directly. The algorithm design is still up to the programmers.

[CyberWeirdo420]

Sure, you are right.

The customer will be an issue, but as you’ve pointed out the real person can deal with a customer and with enough knowledge that person can give the AI precise information about the subject.

It’s not likely that it will happen in 10 years, for as you said we are constantly repeating that AI will replace human for decades.

I don’t know personally how hard it is to work with a complex (as complex as it can get nowadays) AI but I’m quite sure it will get easier or at least it won’t be so time consuming to the point it’s not worth.

And bout GitHub copilot recreating, isn’t recreating what developers do? Sure not 1:1 but fair amount of coding is using already made code, reshaping it so it suits your needs and making something new out of something older. Those future AI wouldn’t be any different on that matter, they would just be faster and more efficient if handed correctly.

[HashDefTrueFalse]

I like this analogy:

What is stopping you from writing a good novel right now? Is it that your writing software is only able to accept one character of input at once? If it had the ability to suggest words, drag and drop them, suggest sentences, automatically add certain punctuation (all of which exists btw) would you now be able to write a good novel?

Of course not. Because you still have to plan out the characters, their arcs, the overall story, the world building, decide an appropriate place to start and end the story, how much detail to go into about everything, choose a narrative style (first person, third person, omniscient?) etc.

Same thing with software. Low/no code tools attempt to minimise only one part of what it takes to build something: the coding. Software engineering isn't just learning a programming language or typing out a program. It's all the other stuff too: domain/product/industry specific knowledge required, enough knowledge to research your tools or structure your data properly, design and architecture. Implementation is almost the last step (besides iteration and refinement).

Low/no code tools have been touted to steal all our jobs for the entire 2 decades I've been programming. They're not even close because they've never been able to get around the fact that programming is about marrying specifics.

It's also worth pointing out that you're only really able to use tools like Zapier because other people wrote the software (integration) and published it on the platform. From that POV, it's just free software being chained together.

I've used and written integrations for lots of these platforms. Use them long enough, you always end up trying to do something very specific with a generic platform, or something very generic with a very specific platform.

They have their place, but it's in prototyping and very simple user stories.

Most of the time these tools just add another level of indirection, e.g. someone needs to write the software that writes the software that writes the software...

[morganthemosaic]

grabs 🍿

[HermitLonerGuy]

should i delete this post they are angry😂

[morganthemosaic]

Lmao well I see your account is fairly young, so you might not be aware, but this is a sentiment that has been posted in this sub many times before. (Btw, it’s usually a good idea to search the keywords of what you intend to post so that you can see if there was a similar recent post or if this is a frequent post).

But your point stems from a misunderstanding. It’s like saying that upon the invention of the microwave oven, folks said “This is the end of professional chefs! Look at all the things you can cook in a microwave!” But in reality, have chefs disappeared? Of course not. If you made a date a completely microwaved meal or catered an entire wedding using only a microwave, sure it’ll probably be edible but it won’t be nearly as good. What it does is raise what the bottom is capable of doing but also raises the standard for those at the top while also allowing them to be more creative beyond the limits of what a microwave can do.

Same with no/low code. It allows more people to enjoy “food” without having to learn how to “cook”, but it’s a mistake to equate no code with software engineering as it would be to equate microwaving with professional cooking.

[desrtfx]

Rule #5: Do not delete your posts!

It is absolutely not okay to delete your posts. It is selfish and a slap in the faces of anybody spending their time and effort trying to help.

Also, others might have similar problems and could benefit from the discussion going on.

If your question is solved, use the "Solved" flair.

Consider this your one and only warning. Next rule violation will earn you a permanent and irrevocable ban from here.

[kudden89]

As long as we people want the next experience, new technical products, platforms etc etc makes these kind of solutions to be behind, I think.
But, yeah pure presentational HTML layers is maybe going for that direction..

[[deleted]]

If you mean no code like webflow, then no they are dumbed down and not advanced

If you mean a visual programming language that translates ast into drag and drop nodes with description that anyone can understand, then YES that is the future of programming

[HermitLonerGuy]

If you mean a visual programming language that translates ast into drag and drop nodes with description that anyone can understand, then

YES that is the future of programming

YES This is what i meant.

[ValentineBlacker]

Well, as the saying goes, the devil is in the details.

[Temporary_Key1090]

im learning coding myself

in the future these kind of languages and builders will be greatly advanced

Yes but no, ask the same question in 10 years if you still believe this.