It’s OK to code, it’s OK to no-code, but there’s a cost to both

This post may appear as an overly critical review of no-code tools, but it’s not. The goal is to look at coding and no-coding through different lenses: a designer, a developer and a product founder. This article explores product end goals and output. The no-code movement is growing. New platforms embracing no-code and low-code are popping up all over and before you know it design Twitter is yet again abuzz with “code is dead, no-code is the future” tweets. Are these designers correct? Is coding dead? What if I told you there was once a dynamic piece of software that was so popular that it powered nearly <a href="https://www.statista.com/chart/3796/websites-using-flash/" rel="noopener ugc nofollow" target="_blank">one-third</a> of all websites on the internet and was the backbone of most videos online? It was a design tool, a coding tool, an animation tool, and even a game engine. It was one of the most in-demand software skills to have in the early 2000s, and now it’s dead. I’m talking about (Macromedia) Adobe <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macromedia_Flash" rel="noopener ugc nofollow" target="_blank">Flash</a>. <a href="https://uxdesign.cc/its-ok-to-code-it-s-ok-to-no-code-but-there-s-a-cost-to-both-5808ee12e657">Website</a>