Systems built with low-code platforms need no or very little unit testing as their building blocks have already been tested. All systems, whether low-code or traditional, need end-to-end system tests. Best value: Low-code
I don't think I could disagree with this point more. The last I checked testing of any sort is next to impossible for low-code (but I haven't seen Linx before; I would love if you are the one to change that). An untested or poorly tested software solution will cost 10 to 100 times as much to make changes to (it is both more difficult to make changes and changes will more often have bugs costing the company time, money, and good will from burned customers). And the only testing low-code has available is completely external (and maybe you can have a single testing environment; maybe if you pay more for it) which makes the tests much more expensive than the integration tests available in a "traditional" codebase.
I don't think I could disagree with this point more. The last I checked testing of any sort is next to impossible for low-code (but I haven't seen Linx before; I would love if you are the one to change that). An untested or poorly tested software solution will cost 10 to 100 times as much to make changes to (it is both more difficult to make changes and changes will more often have bugs costing the company time, money, and good will from burned customers). And the only testing low-code has available is completely external (and maybe you can have a single testing environment; maybe if you pay more for it) which makes the tests much more expensive than the integration tests available in a "traditional" codebase.
No/Low Code - Why hasn't it "won"?
Nathan Kallman ・ May 11 '20 ・ 4 min read