1. 2
  1.  

  2. 3

    The article was originally published on The Conversation, which is a non-profit scientific communication platform, it’s a shame that the link here is to a data-harvesting site that is monetising creative commons content that they’ve grabbed from other sites, rather than to the source.

    I find the ‘no code’ thing very odd because all of the things being described as ‘no code’ look like programming languages to me. We have a thing that just requires people to define a set of actions that happen in response to conditions and build data-flow graphs! No code! No, you have a programming language. Now, it’s often a very nice programming language that removes a ton of boilerplate and gives you a rapidly learnable and concise vocabulary for expressing common idioms, but it’s still a programming language.

    The implicit definition of a ‘programmer’ as ‘a person who writes programs in an inappropriate language’ is not a very helpful distinction.