No-Code and Low-Code Tools: Speed vs Quality

For months we have been testing no-code and low-code tools, perhaps a bit late, as we are no longer in 2020, but we thought it was interesting to analyze the quality of results and potential use cases for future projects.

To be honest, we expected more magic and higher quality results.

They keep things simple, yet there is still some friction and limitations; these platforms are still very raw, even with bugs in production.

The results shown on their landing pages usually feature bright colors with a wow effect, often with some default animation that is repeated across much of the portfolio or showcases. Seeing several assets created with these tools, the wow effect fades when you see the same animation 25 times.

The tool does not make you a designer or a developer.

The results created and published on the landing pages of these tools are made by professionals, carefully selected portfolios, and well-thought-out presentations.

These tools offer speed, speed in basic development tasks and publication, but it does not directly translate into quality; this eventually becomes the most fragile point of your product.

It is amazing the management and iteration capacity they provide. With copy and paste commands, you can duplicate a page in its desktop, tablet, and mobile versions, and choose which one to publish in a minute, without needing a development background.

I am excited by the idea of not having to redo components already developed for design reasons, but from a very personal perspective, I prefer to develop and adapt approved components by hand.

[Decelerationist opinion warning]
Taking the time to make strategic decisions is more valuable in the long term than iterating quickly and modifying components without planning.

For complex components, a technical level is necessary, and in specific cases, deploying microservices or cloud functions is needed, since these platforms do not provide a complete backend.

These tools allow designers and entrepreneurs to build something tangible and publishable within hours.

Building something that can be modified by the client is a real market need, just like adding a CMS and being able to scale articles and products is also a necessity.

It is easier to sell a service where the client can pay and maintain a functioning website than one where they must delegate the management of databases, hosting, storage, etc.

This can also become a double-edged sword: the cost not only increases in the main service, which is the tool itself, but also in plugins that add extra functionalities.

In small and/or temporary projects, such as campaigns or MVPs, where these tools can shine, the maintenance cost can be higher than design and development.

Another option offered by some tools, few of them, is to export the project to static files and use their CMS or implement a database on your own, but it loses the appeal of having a fully connected and easy-to-maintain system.

Being critical, perhaps overly so, the development time for small or basic projects is not a large margin. It is mostly HTML, CSS, Tailwind, and a bit of JavaScript — projects that can be well-structured, deployed quickly, and at a low, sometimes negligible, cost.

We cannot claim that the best approach is always to separate design and development; these tools have a lot of potential in cases where resources for design and development are not available independently, where speed is very important, or for disposable projects.

If your project is small and speed is essential, try these tools, but for scalability and professional quality, custom development remains essential.