[ascotan]

This is what I call "Bayesian software" - it will get you quickly to 70% of what you want but getting 100% of what you want is a game of diminishing returns. For some companies 70% solutions are ok and it's a tradeoff in terms of functionality vs cost which everyone has to make.

The reality is that a lot of software engineering is moving into the 'low code' space even if they don't call it that. This is part of a general strategy to sell B2B services (like cloud platforms or cloud tools) where engineers aren't really developing solutions from scratch as much as they are configuring tools provided to them via a B2B sale. Is this software engineering? I guess it's debatable but it's clearly not 'applied science'.

I see this as a general trend in any craft - craftsmen get displaced by cheap industrial alternatives (like plastic chairs vs actual decent chairs made by a craftsmen). There is no argument that a handmade wood chair made by a craftsman is better, but for many consumers at the bargain store, they want cheap plastic foam-injected chairs even if they are poorly made and break. Does the argument hold that these cheap alternatives are "more expensive" in the long run? maybe. It depends on what you're doing with the chairs.

I think one serious downside to 'low code' solutions is the brain-drain on new devs. I see so many engineers that don't understand basic software architecture because they've spend their career configuring B2B tools. Overtime this model of software will cause us to loose core CS skills.

[datastoat]

I’m curious! Why “Bayesian”?