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)
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)
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 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
The comparison table only lists commercial products - not open source.
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
I'm no expert, but this seems like an evolution of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-aided_software_engineering — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:62FE:2F01:387A:A307:22:51F1 (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://hooperlabs.com/blog/index.php/2019/05/17/difference-between-low-code-no-code-platforms/. 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)
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?