> If you are asking "well we could build this in 2 hours with low-code or 8 hours with rails" - then you are not the target market for low-code. To be able to build a rails app in one day takes years of skill and education and maturity. A lot of people or organisations want to build apps but don't have that expertise.

Exactly, low/no code solutions have their limitations, but I think the space they're useful for is — "they" need a simple CRUD app so they build it themselves in No Code solution, figure out what they really want & what the pain points are and _then_ bring on board a developer if it needs expansion, but with a real todo list in front of them.

Or (just as useful to the business user), realise it's not what they need and bin the project before engaging a dev at all.

Well that's the point of the article isn't it, Rails hasn't been the flavour-of-the-month in about 15 years, it's boringly good, so that's why you should stick with it

> How many projects never even got to a viable prototype because devs decided to rewrite everything in flavour-of-the-month every 3 week

this part sounds pretty fanciful, my experience is at the worst six months for new library in your chosen language, and that you can generally talk them out of; 1-2 years rewrite fever in some is almost overwhelming.

on edit: in short I think even the least self-aware dev is not going to do rewrite cool new tech every 3 week, maybe once but not twice. So sounds a bit hyperbolical.

I admit it was an exaggeration for comic relief, but many projects have definitely not gotten to working prototype because devs wanted to use something fancy

Although i have to say i always found the concept of low-code silly. All code should be low code, and i think rails is actually a very good example of that.