|
|
Yes Pega is one of the platforms..
|
|
|
|
|
This lot may not be a good source of opinions on enterprise type software. From my VERY limited experience with these things the "development" is mostly configuring their framework. The only validity for the expression low code would be low value code. A framework is an abstraction layer and I would consider these to be very abstracted.
You probably need to find a forum of configurers rather than developers.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
I think that is not only matter of configuring their framework. Most of the activities will be spent on process design, including coding C# scripts and where complexity depends from the process you are defining.
|
|
|
|
|
Luigi Esposito wrote: including coding C# scripts
I rest my case, any time you describe coding as writing scripts you are not looking at development requirements but configuration.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes wrote: Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
I really hate it when the stupid human is me. Especially when I know I'm right, and then "Oh sh..."
|
|
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes wrote: the "development" is mostly configuring their framework
Ah, sounds like IIS. 
|
|
|
|
|
I have used it - it is not too bad but the SQL it writes can be truly awful, and you spend nearly as long getting all the configuration settings right as you would coding the solution in a 3GL.
|
|
|
|
|
Duncan Edwards Jones wrote: Something like Pega[^]?
O worked for the Asia/Pacific arm back in 1999-2001 when thay were called PegaSystems. Got a free trip to the USA and England for training. In the US they sent me to Cambridge while in the UK it was Reading.
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
my experience of this type of platform is that it works fine if you can change your systems to follow how the platform works, else you end up doing 3x the coding to get round issues with the platform
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
It sounds like you've been working with SAP.
That works best if you change all systems, including your country's taxation and accounting system, to adjust for SAP.
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: That works best if you change all systems, including your country's taxation and accounting system, to adjust for SAP.
.... and then pour a billion tons of cement to make sure that none of them ever able to change again.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Neely wrote: .... and then pour a billion tons of cement to make sure that none of them ever able to change again into buckets and add SAPs marketing department to the mix.
|
|
|
|
|
The more things change the more they stay the same - deploy the prototype.
Peter Wasser
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
Luigi Esposito wrote: new age development
I hope it fits with your cosmos[^].
|
|
|
|
|
Every language has it strengths and weaknesses. If it is easy to write it cant do much. If it is hard to write it can do magic. A bad decision can ruin the company by loosing some months in money and competitive edge!!!
The ultimate guide are the interfaces/backbone or software with which it must work. I would stick to C# or Java to have enough power. Dont bet too much on buzzwords - you can loose 
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
Just clear: Low code platforms are not ERP systems (SAP, PeopleSoft etc)! Those are around for a long time now and pretty established. We talk about AlphaSoft, Mendix, AppWay to name a few development platform providers.
There is a push to use such platforms as well where I work. In all of the cases the push came from business and not from the IT department! In most cases business didn't really could articulate what they want but they already knew that there is this great tool on the web that can everything in no time. It is also not surprising that sales persons of such platforms contact business people directly, because they know where the money is.
Our business departments have high hopes (faster development, less IT costs, reacting faster to market changes etc) in such platforms but are not yet aware to cut down on fancy functionality that are beyond of what those platforms currently are able to do sometimes (this will change!!). However, it is something to look at, and make the necessary decisions, soon or later whether you want to use spend time in looking into the options to use such a platform as part of your tool stack. Business don't want to wait and spend the money for a beautiful implemented C# algorithm, they want to generate revenue with an application that can be built and deployed fast, worldwide and on every mobile device.
|
|
|
|
|
You perfectly described what is happening in my company  .
Just for clarify we are speaking about a large software written in PowerBuilder that need to be migrated the soonest (SAP, the new Sybase owner, decided to give PowerBuilder development to external company ... we are getting too much worries from these news)
Thanks for your feedback
|
|
|
|
|
hug.login wrote: (this will change!!).
This sort of abstraction attempts is not new. And they will not ever support "fancy" because that sort of thing is often new and at best (idealized best) the abstraction layer must play catch up to every single one.
hug.login wrote: Business don't want to wait and spend the money for a beautiful implemented C# algorithm,
Business doesn't want to wait nor pay for anything.
But what happens is that some businesses will make the mistake of buying into the sales pitch and one of three things will happen...
- They will realize almost immediately that it can't do some critical bit of functionality, something that the company probably already had. And to implement it, if possible at all would require a large scale effort (months) of effort. (And of course the transition period doesn't allow for new features either.)
- They will end up giving up after a short period of time and redoing their entire development because the abstraction layer never does deliver on its promise.
- They end up tied to the proprietary product for years producing a product that looks 'clunky' compared to the competitors because it never has and probably never had the cool stuff. And suffer from hiring because the pool of 'senior' users of the proprietary products is so small.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Luigi,
DevExpress XAF is the only right answer for "low code development".
The XAF framework is built on top of award winning controls (grid, tree, ribbon, navigation, dropdown, etc.).
I have been programming since 30+ years (C, C++, Borland, Delphi, VB6, MFC, SQL, html, aspx, javascript, etc.) and have seen or heard from many "Frameworks", but there is always a limitation somewhere.
There is however no limitation with DevExpress XAF:
- WinForm AND Web, at the same time, from the same code.
- Based on top of award winning components, every year.
- Visual Studio + C# (or VB), absolute full control through code over every aspect of the application, if necessary.
- You describe your data model through code or visually in a class designer: Class, properties, aggregated lists (relations) or not.
- XAF does the rest:
* Builds or updates the database, be it MSSQL, Oracle, etc.
* Prepares views for you: List views, detail views, Lookup views, that you can link to an "Outlook" navigation.
* Gives access to CRUD operations via standard toolbar buttons (fully customizable).
- If necessary, you add you own views or navigation items, dashboards with graphics, gauges, etc., buttons/actions where you want, mainly by describing what you need, with only a few lines of code here and there.
- XAF has all standard features that a business application requires, under others: active directory login or standard authentication, user authorization, validation, appearance, auditing, pivot, localization, etc. everything is so easy and well designed, ready to be used mostly by describing what you need.
I am using this XAF framework intensively since December 2014, and each day, I feel like sending to the DevExpress developers the caviar and the Champagne that they deserve for having build such a marvelous and unique tool. I assure you that it is not possible to build a framework that can do more that this one, simply because it has all what you need, implemented in the most logical, elegant and intuitive way, on the best development platform there is today, namely .NET, Visual Studio and C#.
Some links to mind blowing demos:
Amanda building a small XAF business application in 10 minutes[^]
Seth showing XAF in depth (1h 10mn video that highlights many basic features of XAF)[^]
Some articles about XAF here at code project:
Getting the Job Done with XAF[^]
Using Domain Components (DC) in XAF[^]
Dungeons of XAF and Magic[^]
Download the full XAF framework (one month trial), including their award winning controls
DevExpress[^]
Disclaimer: I am not a DevExpress employee. I use their control set daily in my daytime job as an employee of a small software shop and as a hobbyist at night. The DevExpress tools, including XAF, help me every day to solve my business cases.
|
|
|
|
|
It comes down to the-right-tool-for-the-job. I've used Pascal, C, C++, C#, Smalltalk and 4GL frameworks such as Clarion, Dataflex... Also entry-level systems such as MS Access. I've reviewed and use several of the BPM (Business Process Modeling) solutions.
Today, I can do anything I want with C# and .NET. I can do it 3x faster with Smalltalk, if I want to develop highly customized solutions.
I can do a quick-and-dirty database, list and reporting app with Access. This is ok if you want to train the users and limit the number of deployments. Access is an upgrade from using Excel spreadsheets. Access apps are obsolete every time Microsoft introduces their next version of MS-Office.
Some of the BPM systems are highly productive with business process flow and integrating with legacy systems. But, you can't really build highly customized apps or mobile or web solutions without conforming to their limitations.
I took a look at the DevExpress XAF website and some of their videos. It looks great for a .NET shop and in-house apps. I don't think it's appropriate for building public scale apps that may be used by thousands of users via the Internet. For that, a solution like Meteor is better.
I conclude with "use-the-right-tool-for-the-job." With software, if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problems looks like a nail. There is no one framework for all projects.
Another issue to consider, if you do use a framework or system such as DevExpress XAF, make sure you have all the source code so you don't go down in flames if the vendor goes of in a direction not compatible with your objectives, or goes out of business.
We built an ecommerce system for large scale deployments using IBM Visual Age Smalltalk. To this day, we can easily support the system and upgrade to the latest SOAP or REST or ??? features with minimal time, cost and pain. IBM sold this development tool to Instantiations so support and upgrades continue. All the source code to the entire development environment is included. Our experience with Microsoft development tools and platforms is a lot of pain and re-development every time MS jumps to a new paradigm and makes the old obsolete.
I believe programmers are more productive today, but I can't see the need for good developers going away soon. The bigger challenge is the cheap developers over-seas that we have to compete with, if we're based in 1st world countries.
|
|
|
|
|
Wait until they do a major upgrade, and then let me know how much love you still have for them... 
|
|
|
|
|
You're spreading TOO common words for your kind of development. Just say "we use narrow, proprietary platform to make software - please say us again 'we're hooked on their platform!'". You wanna that?
|
|
|
|
|
Let me take a stab at the business decision making process.
(Because when I got started in the 80's, I was told "don't bother" the 4GL tools are so good,
there won't be ANY programming jobs in a decade!" ROTFLMAO)
1) You see this budget for programmers... It is all for "coding"
2) If you had a solution like... X... You could do you're own reports, etc. etc. etc.
3) See that, you don't need to do coding, so you can cut the programmers and SAVE MONEY
...
4) Oh, it takes a LITTLE configuration (eh, a lot like programming), and it has a 3-5 year break even.
To which I say "RUN".
Honestly, someone has to get to the WHY of this decision. Because if it went the above way, they need help. I will gladly warn your management to NOT DO IT.
"low code" appears to be buzz for "very little programming required"... Just configuration.
Which is wonderful... Until you have to do something SPECIFIC... Or worse, beyond the tools ability, design or intent.
For the record, I am not against moving forward. I am replacing an 14 year old system as I type.
But all of that functionality takes a long time to understand, re-envision, and to implement and test. And if it runs your business... What is the worse that could happen? (and we have seen it happen).
|
|
|
|
|
OK, I started coding around 1979 in Basic on a TRS-80.
I distinctly remember a magazine cover from back then, with a headline like "The End of Coding!".
The lead story was about a tool that would "write your code for you".
You just tell it your requirements, and voila! - a bug-free program is created.
Since then I have watched a never-ending cavalcade of "no more coding" fads march on and off the stage. Clipper, Cognos, Progress, Lansa, Borland ObjectVision, etc.
They are always highly popular with corporate types who salivate at the thought of sacking all those expensive programmers down in IT.
And a war story:
The mid-eighties. I attend a Dec-VAX user group meeting where the highlight is the conversion of an electric utility companies COBOL billing program to COGNOS.
The developer proudly displays the fanfold listing of the COGNOS code, versus the fanfold listing of the COBOL code. The COGNOS listing is about three times thicker.
He says that, currently, the COGNOS program takes more than 16 hours to run, which is NFG, because meter readings flow in constantly. The COBOL program can process a single days billings (meter readings) in 3 hours, which works fine for overnight batch processing.
But he is confident they can optimise the COGNOS program run-times to be "nearly as fast" as the COBOL program.
Later we hear that the IT Director got emergency approval for a Mega-buck or so of new DEC VAX systems to solve the run-time problem for the COGNOS program.
Then we hear that it still won't run overnight, and that the IT Director has asked the board for more money for more VAX'es.
Finally, we hear the IT Director is sacked, and the COGNOS code is ditched.
The IT Director? A week later was Regional Sales Manager for DEC.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
