I recently came across this ebook from Unqork titled Low code vs No code (they've also got a webinar ). I don't know much about Unqork. From their homepage, Unqork is an enterprise no code tool that works with a wide array of enterprise clients ranging from insurance to big banks. They also recently raised at a 2B dollar valuation. In the ebook Unqork aggressively positions themselves against low code tools.

This post isn't about Unqork itself but reading that ebook, I thought, do I not understand "low-code" like everyone else does? Why would they position themselves so heavily against low code specifically? In opposition to low-code really.

I've always thought that low code--the ability to add custom code to a no-code stack--is a boon! It fills holes in a no code platform. Can't accomplish something with our existing building blocks? Well, here's, you know, code! You can do anything with it. It's the ultimate escape valve so if someone really wants to do something, they can go ahead and invest the resources to code it. Why would anyone be against that?

What I realized is that low-code means different things to different people!

I got a lot of responses (thank you for that)! Folks were split into the following camps:

1/ low code tools are simply no-code tools that enable coding (what I thought!). Things like Webflow, Airtable, Zapier are all low code in that they let you do most things without code but use code as an escape valve.

2/ Then there were folks who saw low code as no-code tools that had a higher barrier to entry where code was in some sense necessary to getting the tool to work, dashboarding tools like Retool were mentioned.

3/ Then there are tools aimed at developers that speed up the output of code. This could be something like IDEs or even Autocode (but not utilities like Stripe) which abstract some annoying parts of writing code. They make developers more efficient.

This third bucket is what's interesting: if you're talking to a developer, low code is a completely different concept than if you're speaking to someone with experience with no-code tools! On the developer side, low code requires dev resources. To avoid being lumped in, you're saying we're not low-code! We require no developer resources, just give this to your business folks and they'll build whatever they need themselves! You don't want to be bucketed in the low-code side of things. On the other hand, no-code folks are worried about power, will this tool be able to do everything I need it to do? Is it actually as powerful as what I can build with in house developers?

The reason I bring this up, is that this is another example of how the name "no-code" is doing us a disservice. Most "no-code" tools today have such a diverse user base that custom code is necessary to serving a lot of those use cases--they're all actually low-code tools (if we follow our naming logic).

Therefore, we're lumped with a bunch of developer tools that have very little to do with our goal of letting users create their own software. And may explain why some companies --top down companies especially-- have to aggressively position themselves against a low-code category!

Note: this is my monthly allowance for complaining about the word "no-code", thank you for indulging me!