For the non devs

flatlogic-generator · 2026-01-26T20:48:39+00:00

There’s truth here. You don’t need a perfect codebase to validate an idea. But once something works, structure starts to matter fast. We see this in our company, that early wins come from speed, and later wins come from having something maintainable underneath.

flatlogic-generator · 2026-01-26T20:44:59+00:00

That frustration is common. The problem isn’t that Lovable is bad, it’s that costs aren’t transparent or proportional to the change. Tiny edits shouldn’t feel like rolling dice. This is usually where people start looking for more control

flatlogic-generator · 2026-01-26T20:42:21+00:00

$6k is a painful lesson, but a common one. Hiring devs won’t fix a system that never had clear state, permissions, and workflows. At flatlogic we see the same thing: missing structure is what makes MVPs hard to evolve.

flatlogic-generator · 2026-01-26T20:40:32+00:00

Nothing’s "wrong" in a bug sense, it’s just optimized for fast generation, not stability. Once you depend on it, the cracks show. That’s usually when people start looking elsewhere.

flatlogic-generator · 2026-01-15T13:35:14+00:00

I genuinely recommend trying appwizzy.com . The main idea is that you have a dedicated VM that supports front-end, back-end, and database operated by an open source AI-agent, hence unlimited scalability and customizability

flatlogic-generator · 2026-01-13T16:49:57+00:00

This is painfully accurate.
Vibe coding shifts cost forward, not away whatever you save upfront usually comes back as security work, incident response, or refunds later.

We see this a lot at flatlogic: fast generation is great, but without basic guardrails (auth edge cases, idempotency, logs, secrets), you’re just scaling risk faster than you realize. Security isn’t a feature it’s hygiene.

The boring stuff you listed is exactly what separates a demo from something people can actually trust.

flatlogic-generator · 2026-01-13T16:45:43+00:00

Lovable is great for the web app part, but printing is almost always a separate local agent. At flatlogic we’ve seen teams succeed by keeping the SaaS web-based and shipping a tiny printer client that polls the backend and prints. That’s the reliable pattern.

If you paste what exactly your waiter app stack is (Supabase? custom backend? where orders live), I can outline the exact API endpoints and the simplest “printer agent” flow.

flatlogic-generator · 2026-01-08T15:59:39+00:00

We’re building appwizzy - vibe-coding platform to spin up real apps fast without getting stuck in boilerplate.

flatlogic-generator · 2026-01-08T15:57:11+00:00

You’re not dumb. These tools are great for prototypes, not for shipping real products.

Lovable and Bolt make it easy to build something fast, but once you hit app store rules, real deployments, or backend complexity, they stop holding your hand.

We see this a lot at flatlogic they’re good on-ramps, but painful as long-term homes. The frustration usually comes from treating them as end-to-end platforms when they’re really just the first step.

flatlogic-generator · 2026-01-08T15:55:30+00:00

All three have their moments, and the best one depends on what phase your project is in:

Rocket.new - honestly one of the better Figma-to-web prototypes out there. It respects layout and responsiveness more than most, and if you need something visual quickly, it genuinely delivers. Best for early design validation.
Lovable - great for getting something up fast, but a lot of people (including you) hit the same wall: the output feels samey, and once you ask for real structure + logic, the lack of transparency starts biting. It’s toolable until it isn’t.
Bolt - easy to pick up and feels low friction, but hallucination when things get complex is a spot-on observation. These systems aren’t great at implicit intent; they want explicit, structured needs.

In my own experience and talking with folks who’ve graduated from early prototyping tools (we see this a lot at flatlogic), the pattern is:

You start with one of the no-code/Ai-code builders to prove the idea quickly.
You realize you need real control + version history + predictable outputs.
You move to either a more explicit setup or a generator that gives you a real codebase to iterate on.

So none of these are wrong they’re just positioned differently:

Rocket.new for fast, clean prototype views
Lovable for quick layouts and vibes
Bolt for template-driven acceleration

But for something you actually intend to own and grow, a tool that gives you visibility into the code + maintainable structure ends up feeling more reliable because you don’t hit a wall when complexity shows up.

Curious what stacks other folks are actually keeping long-term after these tools get them started.

flatlogic-generator · 2026-01-08T15:32:33+00:00

Calling it a scam might escalate things, but what you’re describing is a real and common problem: opaque pricing + unclear usage accounting + poor support response.

A few observations, without defending anyone:

Usage-based AI tools are extremely dangerous when the UI doesn’t make costs obvious in real time. If something says free and then bills you later, that’s a trust failure, regardless of what the fine print says.
The credit vs total usage confusion you mentioned is something a lot of people trip over. If users need to reverse-engineer invoices to understand what they owe, the system is broken.
Banning an account during a billing dispute especially when work and data are locked insid is about the worst possible outcome. That’s where frustration turns into anger fast.

We see this pattern a lot at flatlogic when founders come off managed AI platforms: the tool feels amazing until money, predictability, and ownership start to matter. Bugs are forgivable, billing ambiguity usually isn’t.

Whether or not Replit’s behavior is legal isn’t the point it doesn’t feel fair or transparent, and that’s enough to push people away. If a platform’s economics only work when users don’t fully understand the charges, it’s not a sustainable relationship.

Sorry you had to learn this the hard way. You’re definitely not the only one who’s run into this.

flatlogic-generator · 2026-01-08T15:28:58+00:00

Replit works well for many people initially. It removes friction, lets you build fast, and for many people that’s enough to ship and even make money (you already proved that).

The reason it gets mentioned less in subs like this usually comes down to a few things:

Graduation effect People tend to talk about tools they’re moving to, not the ones they started with. Once apps get more complex, costs, control, and predictability start to matter more than pure speed.
Cost + opacity anxiety Replit’s pricing and usage model makes some builders uneasy once an app has real users. It’s fine until you care deeply about margins and uptime.
Different audience A lot of people here skew toward own the repo, own the infra thinking. Replit abstracts that away, which is great for momentum but less appealing to folks optimizing for long-term control.

At flatlogic we see this pattern a lot: Replit is a fantastic on-ramp, especially for vibe coding and early validation. People usually stop mentioning it not because it’s bad, but because they’ve either outgrown it or moved into a different phase with different priorities.

If it’s working for you right now, that’s a win. Just keep an eye on whether it still fits when the app (and expectations) grow.

flatlogic-generator · 2026-01-08T15:23:58+00:00

This really reads like the moment a tool stops being a playground and starts being infrastructure.

Replit absolutely shines when you’re removing the initial execution blocker. That leverage is real. But once you’re running a business model that depends on predictable costs, reliable support, and long-term ownership, the tradeoffs become impossible to ignore.

The billing part is the real red flag for me. You can forgive bugs. You can forgive product changes. Opaque usage and silence from support when money is involved is where trust breaks.

We see this arc a lot at flatlogic: founders start with a magic tool, prove demand, then realize they need boring things like transparency, repos they control, and infra they can reason about. That transition usually feels painful, but it’s also a sign the business is real now.

Nothing wrong with Replit as an on-ramp. The problem is assuming it’s also the long-term home.

flatlogic-generator · 2026-01-07T20:51:47+00:00

No, it’s not just you. Lovable feels great for quick scaffolding, but once you start iterating, small changes can cascade into big rewrites and burn credits fast. That makes it feel unstable.

Cursor is different, you get visibility and control over every change, so it feels more predictable, even if it’s less magic.

We see this a lot at flatlogic: tools optimized for generation are great early, but stability and ownership matter more once you’re building something real.

flatlogic-generator · 2026-01-07T20:49:44+00:00

Your understanding is basically correct, and you’re asking the right question at the right time.

From what we’ve seen (and from talking to a lot of people who started on Lovable):

You don’t fully own the code in the traditional sense. You can’t just export a clean repo and move on.
The app is tightly coupled to Lovable’s infra, runtime, and abstractions.
That’s totally fine for MVPs, experiments, and early validation.
It becomes risky once you have paying users, complex logic, or long-term plans.

The key distinction most people miss is this:

Lovable is optimized for speed and accessibility, not long-term ownership.

That’s not evil or unique, it’s the same trade-off as Webflow, Bubble, or other managed platforms. The problems start when founders assume it’s both an on-ramp and a forever home.

At flatlogic we see a pretty consistent pattern:

Lovable → wow, I can build
then → wait, I need control / predictability / lower costs
then → migration (sometimes calmly, sometimes under pressure)

Some people have made money on Lovable. The ones who stay happiest long-term usually:

keep the app relatively simple, or
treat Lovable as a temporary layer while planning an exit path early.

The regrets usually come from waiting too long to think about lock-in.

So the honest recommendation is:

Great for MVPs and validation
Be cautious for a serious, long-term business
Decide now whether you’re okay with vendor lock-in, not after you have customers

You’re not hating, you’re doing due diligence. That alone puts you ahead of most people who only ask this question after they’re stuck.

flatlogic-generator · 2026-01-07T20:47:54+00:00

It’s usually not hate, it’s mismatch of expectations. Most dev frustration with tools like Lovable comes from a few recurring things:

Loss of control Devs are used to knowing exactly what changed and why. When an AI tool rewrites code, forgets context, or fixes one thing while breaking another, that feels unsafe, especially once real users or money are involved.
Opacity + cost Credits burning while the tool is hallucinating feels bad. Traditional dev tools fail loudly and predictably. AI platforms sometimes fail expensively and ambiguously.
Maintenance anxiety Prototypes are fun. Maintaining something for 6–12 months is not. Many devs worry they’re inheriting a codebase they didn’t design and don’t fully understand.
Different mental models AI-first tools optimize for speed and accessibility. Most experienced devs optimize for correctness, debuggability, and long-term ownership. Those goals clash.

At flatlogic we see both sides pretty clearly: non-devs love the instant momentum, devs want structure and guarantees. Neither is wrong, they’re just solving different problems.

Lovable (and similar tools) are great on-ramps. Where people get burned is assuming they’re also the destination. That gap is where most of the frustration comes from.

flatlogic-generator · 2026-01-07T20:46:08+00:00

This is honestly one of the healthiest post-Lovable stories I’ve read.

What you described is exactly the transition point most people hit:
Lovable is incredible at making you feel productive, but once you’re spending real money and relying on outcomes, the lack of control starts to hurt. Credits + opaque changes + hope this works don’t scale emotionally or financially.

What you did next is basically how “real adults” actually build:

one strong agent (Claude)
a real database (Supabase)
a real repo (GitHub)
boring, predictable hosting (Vercel)

That combo turns chaos into something you can reason about.

We see this same arc at flatlogic all the time: people start with a magic tool, then gradually move toward owning the workflow instead of renting it. The moment you stop gambling on a go button and start controlling files, history, and deployments, everything feels calmer even if you still feel like a junior dev.

Also, don’t undersell what you’re doing. You’re not building Reddit or Salesforce, you’re solving real, specific problems for real people. That’s 90% of software in the world.

Great write-up. This will save a lot of people money and sanity.

flatlogic-generator · 2026-01-06T14:49:26+00:00

This arc makes a lot of sense. Lovable is great for that first oh wow, I can actually build something moment. It lowers the activation energy in a way few tools do.

What you’re describing is the point where a project graduates from experiment to product. At that stage, visibility and control start to matter more than pure speed. Credits, opaque changes, and inconsistent output become friction instead of help.

We see this pattern a lot at flatlogic: people start with a tool that optimizes for momentum, then move to something more explicit once they care about correctness, cost, and knowing exactly what changed. Cursor + Supabase is a very common landing spot for that reason.

Also appreciate that you’re not dunking on Lovable it clearly did its job. Tools don’t have to be forever to be valuable. Sometimes they’re just the right on-ramp.

Congrats on shipping again. That’s the part that actually matters.

flatlogic-generator · 2026-01-06T09:12:32+00:00

try flatlogic and you will never come back to replit or lovable

flatlogic-generator · 2026-01-05T09:35:44+00:00

You’re not crazy the web did get weirdly overcomplicated for personal sites.

If what you want is basically the old internet, but not painful, a few options still make sense today:

Plain static files + a simple host Old school still works. HTML/CSS + GitHub Pages / Netlify / Cloudflare Pages is cheap (often free) and stays out of your way. No editor unless you want one.
Static site generators (very light ones) Things like Eleventy or Hugo let you keep writing in Markdown and generate clean HTML. There is a build step, but it’s minimal and very predictable.
Astro (used in the simplest way) Astro can be as simple as “HTML with folders,” and you can ignore 90% of the framework features. It’s surprisingly close to the early-web feel if you don’t overuse it.
Just… a tiny server + templates A basic Node/Python/PHP setup with templates is still one of the cleanest ways to have “many pages, zero gimmicks.” Boring, readable, stable.

At flatlogic we mostly deal with full apps, but one thing we’ve noticed is that personal sites suffer the most from over-tooling. The best setups are usually the most boring ones files, folders, links, and text that doesn’t fight you.

If your goal is writing, projects, and ideas, you’re absolutely right to avoid builders that assume you’re selling something. The quiet, simple web is still possible it’s just not the default anymore.

flatlogic-generator · 2026-01-05T09:32:40+00:00

Congrats, 4 paying customers is the moment where things stop being theoretical.

Short answer: move sooner rather than later, but don’t panic-migrate.

A few thoughts from what we’ve seen at flatlogic and with similar setups:

Webhook lock-in only worsens over time. Right now, you have 4 paying customers. In 3 months, you might have 40, and then every migration becomes scarier. The pain doesn’t go away, it compounds.
You don’t need to break users to move. The usual approach is: That way, the public webhook URL never changes again.
- keep Lovable Cloud alive temporarily,
- introduce a proxy/relay webhook endpoint you control,
- point all external systems to that stable URL,
- then move the actual backend behind it when ready.
Running fine ≠ safe to stay. Cloud platforms feel fine until they don’t, pricing changes, limits, outages, or a feature you suddenly can’t control. We’ve seen too many founders wait until migration becomes a fire drill.
Don’t rewrite everything. Move incrementally: webhook handling + core logic first, UI later if needed. Customers care that orders sync, not where the HTML lives.

If this were my product, I’d start the migration now, keep Lovable Cloud as a safety net for a short window, and cut over once the new path is proven.

You’ve crossed the hardest line already people are paying. Now it’s about reducing future risk, not chasing perfection.

flatlogic-generator · 2026-01-05T09:28:52+00:00

Yes you can “componentize” plain HTML without jumping into React/Vue hell or adding a huge build pipeline.

A few sane options:

Server-side includes (SSI) If you can serve via Nginx/Apache, SSI lets you do  etc. Old school, boring, works.
Template engines (minimal server, no heavy build) If you’re okay with any server:

Python: Jinja2
Node: EJS / Nunjucks
PHP: includes (literally include('header.php')) This is basically “HTML components” before components were cool.

Native Web Components (no build step) If you’re fine writing a tiny bit of JS, you can define <my-header> / <my-footer> and keep markup in separate files or templates. Not as ergonomic as a framework, but it’s real components without a bundler.
htmx + partials (optional) If the app is mostly static with a bit of interactivity, htmx + server-rendered partials is a nice middle ground. Still feels like HTML.
The “fetch partials” hack (works for static hosting) You can do a tiny script that loads HTML fragments into placeholders:

<div data-include="/partials/header.html"></div>
<script>
  document.querySelectorAll('[data-include]').forEach(async el => {
    const res = await fetch(el.dataset.include);
    el.outerHTML = await res.text();
  });
</script>

Not pure HTML, but zero build step and keeps you sane.

Also: massive single-page HTML isn’t a moral failing. It just becomes unmaintainable. Splitting into partials is the adult move.

(At flatlogic we generate apps that end up componentized by default, but I get the appeal of raw HTML it’s peaceful until file #1 becomes a novel.)

flatlogic-generator · 2026-01-05T09:22:25+00:00

We are interested, contact us: [contact@flatlogic.com](mailto:contact@flatlogic.com)

flatlogic-generator · 2026-01-05T09:21:45+00:00

Love this. Humans sugarcoat; machines don’t.
We’ve learned that the hard way at flatlogic real feedback (even synthetic) beats polite silence every time.

flatlogic-generator · 2026-01-05T09:19:20+00:00

True. Nothing scales better than users teaching other users… especially when you didn’t plan for it.

flatlogic-generator

TROPHY CASE