No-code technologies may initially lead to faster application development, allowing for quick creation and modifications.
However, a significant drawback lurks behind this apparent simplicity and accessibility. Often, developers dive into development rapidly, delivering initial results that dazzle clients, making them believe that choosing No-code was a wise decision.
Yet, over time, development speed tends to slow down progressively. Instead of the promised 100 hours of development, it may take 120 hours or even 200. Timelines stretch from the expected 4 weeks to 6, or even 8.
The core issue arises when testing and bug fixing kick in, either after the initial results or sometimes even after the entire application is complete. This phase uncovers not only development errors but also mistakes in requirements and logic within the application.
Clients may then express dissatisfaction, exclaiming, 'Hey, this is no longer cost-effective! And certainly not speedy!'
Developers are left with a tough choice: perform bug fixes for free or present the client with a bill so hefty that it sours the client's relationship with both the developer and the No-code idea.
So, how can this be prevented?
The answer is straightforward: rigorous testing of requirements from the early stages of development and the creation of comprehensive, client-approved documentation is essential before starting development.
The apparent ease and accessibility of No-code platforms can sometimes be deceptive. It's crucial to remember that the most critical aspect of any application is its underlying logic and the interaction of its elements. The application creation method, whether through No-code tools or traditional coding, is less important.
Overlooking important factors during application design or making errors can lead to the painful necessity of extensive revisions, akin to replacing a block in the foundation of a colossal pyramid.
Therefore, allocating more time to crafting the application schema and detailed documentation is prudent, followed by rigorous testing and error correction.
While testing the schema and documentation may incur costs, it is undeniably more cost-effective than addressing issues in a completed application.
