Future of Coding is an online community with a welcoming, cooperative, and revolutionary spirit. We are unified in the belief that the common practice of programming is tragically less humane than it could be.

Future of Coding

<https://buttondown.email/hillelwayne/archive/nocode-will-not-bring-computing-to-the-masses/|NoCode Will Not Bring Computing to the Masses>

&gt; It's not enough for a tool to solve your problem for you to use that tool. You have to also A) recognize the problem you have is solvable, B) recognize the tool can solve it, and C) be reasonably confident that you _personally_ can solve the problem with the tool. You need knowledge, skill, and the right mentality. Even programmers, who _already have that mentality_, don't automatically generalize it to all applicable domains. Otherwise we'd be doing a lot more with our phones.
&gt; It's unreasonable to expect the average person will use any NoCode to solve their problems, regardless of how easy the tools are. This leaves the people for whom it provides economic value, which is why all modern NoCode tools are oriented towards business.

NoCode has been tried before <https://guitarvydas.github.io/2020/12/09/No-Code.html>.

I feel like much of the controversy on no-code just comes from the ambiguity of the term and people starting from different respective definitions :thinking_face:

Maybe it should be called “NoSkill programming”, and then people would become aware of the problem with it?

<@U0744CANSG4> I think the controversy of no-code is its proponents not having any working definition.

Maybe you can find something interesting by e.g. starting with a logographic alphabet, or connecting symbols together using a spatial property other than adjacency, or having an interface that forces syntactical correctness, or putting words in boxes or jigsaw pieces that you can move around with a mouse.. But you're still coding things by combining symbols together.

Yeah, no.

Your analysis suggests that Excel would never be successful.