"Low-Code is a gimmick”. Ok, let’s unpack this.

In the world of business and technology, there is yet to be consensus on the value of Low-Code No-Code (LCNC) platforms. Quite a few developers are unimpressed with LCNC platforms. Search for "Is LCNC a gimmick," and you'll find posts on popular developer forums tearing apart the concept of Low-Code/No-Code (LCNC).

The key objections include:

• "You can’t optimize or refine code for edge cases the tool doesn’t anticipate."
• "The abstraction hides critical logic, making debugging and performance tuning difficult."
• "You can’t scale it effectively.”
• "It lacks the fine control needed for performance optimization in resource-intensive applications."
• "Low-Code environments abstract important decisions in AI/ML pipelines, reducing transparency."
• "Vendor lock-in becomes a concern as projects become dependent on a specific platform’s ecosystem."

Yet, the other reality is that LCNC is widely acknowledged as the next big thing—by CIOs, tech consultancies, and market research firms. So much so that Deloitte estimates that by the same year, 75% of enterprise apps will be built using Low-Code platforms. This divide is not new. It’s pretty clear that these two interpretations exist because of two different viewpoints.

A developer sees LCNC as an oversimplified, almost naive approach to software development. When LCNC platforms promise that anyone can build an application without coding, it’s no surprise that a developer—often sceptical by nature—won’t be easily convinced.

On the other hand, a department leader, more focused on the outcome than the process, is bound to be interested in a solution that promises to remove bottlenecks, cut costs, and speed up work.

Why this disagreement is interesting for us

This disagreement is fascinating, especially for us. After all, we are an LCNC platform, but before that, we are programmers, and we will always be. So when our peers call LCNC a gimmick, it naturally piques our interest.

We are open to having our opinions challenged by programmers. But we also believe that LCNC is not a surprise, not a miracle, and certainly not a gimmick. It’s simply the next step in the evolution of software development. In fact, the real question should be why LCNC didn’t become mainstream 10 years ago. But, here we are.

The key question: what is programming really about?

It’s often said that the most important question in any field is, “What is this field about?” For us, that question becomes, “What is programming?”

We see programming as the act of training computers to do meaningful work. The next question becomes, “How?” This is where we think there’s little room for disagreement because every major shift in programming has been an attempt to answer this question better. LCNC is just another attempt. So, the real debate should be whether this is a legitimate answer to the ‘how.’

A quick look at programming history shows the path to LCNC

To unpack this further, let's take a quick look at the history of programming:

• Early computers used binary code – At the start, people had to give computers instructions using only 1s and 0s. This made programming incredibly slow and difficult, and only a few specialists could do it.
• Assembly languages made things easier – Instead of just 1s and 0s, programmers could now write short, human-readable instructions. It was still close to the computer’s hardware, but it made coding faster and somewhat easier.
• High-level languages like C and Java appeared – These languages were designed to be more user-friendly, allowing programmers to focus on bigger tasks while the languages took care of complex things like memory management.
• Programming became more abstract – Over time, tools and libraries automated many common tasks, so developers didn’t have to start from scratch. This sped up development and made programming accessible to more people.

Programming is about abstraction.

The pattern is clear. Every milestone in programming has been about abstracting away the difficult parts. Abstraction has always been the answer, and it’s no surprise that LCNC is simply another milestone along that road.

How LCNC is just the next abstraction in programming

Low-Code and No-Code (LCNC) platforms are essentially another layer of abstraction in the evolution of programming. Just like high-level languages made coding easier by hiding the complexity of machine code, LCNC tools simplify development by offering pre-built components and visual interfaces.

These platforms let users build applications without worrying about the underlying code, much like how older languages abstracted hardware-specific instructions. While this speeds up development and opens up software creation to a broader audience, it comes with trade-offs like reduced control and flexibility.

Developers raise some valid concerns about LCNC’s limitations

Naturally, some developers aren’t entirely convinced but are not outright dismissive either. They raise valid concerns, such as the ones we mentioned earlier in this post.?

Most of these concerns were valid when the first LCNC platforms burst onto the scene. Today, LCNC platforms address all these concerns, much better than high-code systems were ever able to.??

1. One of the most common objections is the belief that LCNC platforms cannot scale. However, modern LCNC tools have proven that there are no real limits to scaling. Businesses have used LCNC solutions to build robust applications that can grow alongside their needs with no performance bottlenecks.
2. Security is another area where LCNC platforms are often questioned. But in reality, these platforms offer the same security standards as traditional development environments. They are designed to handle enterprise-level security needs, ensuring that even complex applications remain secure.
3. Some critics say that LCNC platforms cannot provide the customization required for advanced features. This is a misunderstanding of what Low-Code is meant to do. LCNC is a layer of abstraction designed to deliver operational automation, not niche applications like Microsoft Office. With LCNC, apps like CRM, ERP, and other enterprise solutions can be delivered seamlessly.
4. Contrary to what some believe, debugging on an LCNC platform can actually be simpler than in high-code environments. The limited variables and structured interfaces make it easier to pinpoint issues. The debugging process is smoother and more intuitive. Developers can resolve problems faster and with fewer headaches.
5. When it comes to maintaining and extending code, LCNC platforms surpass traditional coding environments. Their built-in frameworks and automated processes make maintaining code simpler. This makes LCNC platforms several times better in terms of maintainability and extensibility.
6. The concern about vendor lock-in stems from the fear of becoming too dependent on a specific platform. However, vendor lock-in tends to be higher when there is heavy custom coding involved. With LCNC, the principle is to minimize custom coding. Your app logic remains your intellectual property, not the code itself. While switching platforms is always challenging, LCNC makes it far easier to switch from one platform to another with significantly less effort than traditional alternatives.

We can speak so confidently about these because, at Amoga, we’ve tackled these challenges and resolved them. Our clients, from diverse industries with varying challenges and expectations, have been able to see results.

What’s common in their satisfaction is that their technology no longer holds their business back. Instead, their tech has sparked a shift in mindset. Now, work is seen as something that can be encoded, and teams only focus on what cannot be done.

The major parts of “who does what and when” are automated, marking a significant leap forward in how tech can accelerate business processes.

The right question: How can LCNC help you?

Ultimately, technology must pass through two critical tests: Is it usable, and is it scalable? The answer must be "yes" to both for tech to have value beyond the lab. LCNC has shown that it can leap through these tests, and everyone—including developers—will be better off by shifting the question from “Is it a gimmick?” to “How can I do better work faster with this?”