Talk:Low-code development platform

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconSoftware: Computing C‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Unfitting sources[edit]

Imho source 13 LLC, Flatlogic (2022-12-05). "What is the difference between Low Code & No Code" does not at all support the statement it's used for in the article. Dsuepke (talk) 06:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And, based on the summary at least, source 12 Rymer, John. "Low-Code Platforms Deliver Customer Facing Apps Fast, But Can They Scale Up?" seems to say the opposite of what it's used for in the article... Honestly feels like someone just took some sources that seemed to vaguely fit and spread them across the article. Dsuepke (talk) 06:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional Criticism[edit]

Some programmers have voiced concerns to me personally that low/no code solutions do not produce easy to read code, often with little in-code commenting which make it difficult to find problems, add human coded features, or scale in the future. I haven't found a reliable source for this yet, but please consider inclusion of one or more of these if you do. I find these concerns to be valid personally from my own experience working with many programmers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlepisto (talkcontribs) 07:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The comparison table only lists commercial products - not open source.

A second table for OS should be added.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Neither of these lists should be included (removed unsourced indiscriminate list with pricing information). Wikipedia articles are not supposed to serve as product catalog (see WP:NOTCATALOG), but should focus on encyclopedic information based on independent reliable sources. GermanJoe (talk) 07:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forrester publications[edit]

The article should focus on research that provides substantial new topical information. Not every minor update needs mentioning, especially when a company floods the market with similar publications every few months (see also WP:WEIGHT). Of course noteworthy findings from one of the leading researchers should be used for encyclopedic information, but the article is not supposed to be a comprehensive list of routine publications. GermanJoe (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have trimmed this list once again, Wikipedia is no directory for PR publications and so-called market research. Improvements should focus on substantial topical information about the technology itself, not on inserting as many provider lists as possible to the article. GermanJoe (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You make a good point GermanJoe. Since this market is still maturing and analysts are releasing updated reports every year, maybe a more useful information for readers would be to include only the latest reports instead of the chronological list that's here now. Mozzello(talk) 11:31, 4 April 2019 (GMT)
We should use sources that provide the most topic-related information about the technology and its development - not just a (promotional) provider list, but substantial and relevant facts about low-code development in general. Also, most of the article should focus on established topic-related knowledge instead of recent industry news (WP:NOTNEWS applies). Admittedly the distinction is often difficult for topics that are still in flux, when a lot of the information is still "news" to begin with. I have also added a COI information on top, in case any editor with a possible conflict of interest would like to suggest changes to improve the article. GermanJoe (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This entire article sounds like corporate-speak from Forrester and its kind. (talk) 07:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm no expert, but this seems like an evolution of — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:62FE:2F01:387A:A307:22:51F1 (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please consider incorporating material from the above draft submission into this article. Drafts are eligible for deletion after 6 months of inactivity. ~Kvng (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this year-long open discussion was one suggestion and one disagree for No Consensus. Group29 (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These two articles have similar structure and overlap in coverage. The distinction between no- and low-code is said to be blurry. I propose that No-code development platform be merged here. ~Kvng (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disagree - There is enough distinction and content between the two articles to make them separate. If the merged application were to be able to say Low Code and No Code Development and there really was nothing to separate them, then there could be a case to merge. There currently is a section in No Code development that describes the differences. Note that this request has been open for more than three months with no other comments. I suggest the proposal could be closed. Group29 (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Language issues[edit]

1) "A common benefit is that a wider range of people can contribute to the application's development—not only those with coding skills but require a good governance to be able adhere to common rules and regulations." The part of this sentence after "but" doesn't make sense. Someone who knows the author's intent should rewrite this. BTW, "require a good governance" sounds like a poor translation from some other language to English.

2) The first two sentences in the "Use" section sounds like they came from some popular magazine in 1995. Wow, personal computers have lots of apps! Maybe those two sentences should just be deleted?

WikiAlto (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]