Hacker News Reader

> We understand people want to see the UI, but it's not the key selling point. Pretty apps isn't what you'd use Alan for (although you could).

In my humble opinion, I would suggest rethinking this.

I imagine you don't intend to sound that way, but a response like this might suggest to people that you don't value user experience or good design, which would rule a lot of otherwise-interested people right out. For any serious project, how it looks and how it feels is every bit as important as how it functions. (Even for B2B or internal-only needs, this regularly remains true).

If I can't build a gorgeous, industry-leading well designed app in Alan, then there needs to be clear information about how I would do that outside of Alan while using your platform. Otherwise, Alan is just for disposable apps / throw-away apps / Excel-replacement apps, and for any serious work, I'm eventually going to have to rewrite the whole app in something else anyway so I might as well start there first.

> Otherwise, Alan is just for disposable apps / throw-away apps / Excel-replacement apps, and for any serious work, I'm eventually going to have to rewrite the whole app in something else anyway so I might as well start there first.

There's no reason to be so elitist. Disposable applications can become important in business, they're often the duct tape that holds a small or medium sized company together. If they can be written more quickly and with more functionality than in MS Office apps, there's a very legitimate and actually very large use case for Alan.

Only by the niche that is aware they are writing throw away applications.

No one "asked" for Excel applications, Excel was there, and applications started getting written in it.

Alan has to be installed on-purpose, it can't be used accidentally like Excel was. Part of the (global) utility function is how something looks.

Fair points. Honestly I think our default UI looks pretty rad and it’s super important to us.

I think we need to do a Show HN at a later date to showcase it. There is so much to say about the platform, we wanted to focus it on the modeling language right now. I totally understand people want to know more about the UI though.

Even if you don't think that users will pick your product because great UI is the top priority, it's likely that avoiding bad UI is still high on the priority list. Passing that hurdle means showing the UI.

I'm getting the feeling that this thing is for developing form-and-table based UI, which is pretty damned utilitarian and arguably hit its design peak in the 90s, with only slight spins from then onward.

> We understand people want to see the UI, but it's not the key selling point. Pretty apps isn't what you'd use Alan for (although you could). We try to focus on the modeling language, as it's hopefully unique and cool enough to draw the right audience in.

I don't understand this. Whether you consider the UI to be a key selling point or not, it is still an indispensable part of the product. For me, the fact that I can't even see a screenshot of it is extremely off putting.

Imagine if Tesla didn't have any photos of the car in their marketing materials, just diagrams of the electric engine. "The key selling point is the electric engine, not the body." So what if it's not the key selling point? Even if a customer's priority is the engine, they are going to want to know about other aspects.

If the UI is a no-go for a potential user's use case, then what doesn't matter if the you totally ace the modeling language? Of course, lead with the modeling language if that is your unique selling point, but don't make people literally install software to see the UI.

> We understand people want to see the UI, but it's not the key selling point.

I'm extremely confused as to what on earth the product is then.

If the UI is not important here, who are the key users you're expecting?

From your site:

> Alan is a low code platform, enabling efficient and low cost development of tailor-made software applications.

So I can quickly make a software application, ok.

And it should have great UX baked in:

> Furthermore, applications would be easier to use, because they would be generated with excellent UX baked in, and implementations cannot introduce magical or unintended behavior. People would also never need training for new applications: they would already know how to use them.

And it has generated and custom UI and dashboards:

> It includes both fully generated and custom built graphical user interfaces and dashboards, running on desktops, touch terminals, hand-held devices etc.

And you have a headline:

> See it with your own eyes

You want me to see it with my own eyes, and give me a tutorial and the code that would allow me to do so. But you don't want me to see it before then?

So there's a UI that it makes. This UI is the final actual output of the code I am writing. And it's not the key selling point?

I'm not trying to be an arse but I want to really convey just how strongly I feel that your page should show me some actual examples. Screenshots are fine, but demos would be the main thing I'd aim for. You have an animation in your tutorial, which is good, but then it seems that it only shows launching an app then stops!

> We understand people want to see the UI, but it's not the key selling point. Pretty apps isn't what you'd use Alan for

And yet,

> This makes it ideal for administrative tools and data gathering > Solutions built with Alan include everything from small accounting systems you can build in an afternoon, to large ERP solutions.

I really pity the users of those systems then.

If prettiness isn’t a key selling point, doesn’t mean it’s not gorgeous. Sorry if it came across like it’s not a priority for us. But it’s not what sets it apart: all our competitors also have pretty apps, they don’t have our language.

As dev AND ux designer I ask you to, please, not to forget that most of decision makers have been in a situation where they had to throw away a medium to big system whose UX was blatantly old and poorly executed because it was on top of something similar to Alan. (This is just 4GL again)

As a UX designer / dev I ensure you those concerns are front and center for us ;) The modeling language basically ensures applications are easy to understand, and we have lots of solutions to make them easy to use as well.

If they are "front and center" they should be covered by your front page, probably also centered :P

Anyway I'm intrigued, but being it closed source means there's a huge "NO" for me written on top of it. Even if it's source code included (as in "we give code snapshots to customers") this means it is not the kind of project I would bet on.

Even if you don’t want wide adoption quickly, you’re obviously looking for feedback from a select group and that should entail thoughtful guidance and enough information to not roadblock the feedback process. This point is simply a rationalization, recognize that and you’ll be better off.

Same with not wanting to show the UI because it’s not the main selling point, I’ll assume it’s a rationalization or diversion, and will guess the real reason is it’s not fully baked yet or not impressive. Other wise it soesnt hurt to let it be seen.

If this is true, remember there’s nothing wrong with things being at an early state of maturity at a startup. Just be up front and say we want to show xyz as soon as practical. People understand that.

IMHO could show a UI demo written in a different language as a "side-app", as long as the core data model is in Alan; that would make it easier to see the power of Alan.

I second the GP's sentiment regarding code availability. Most of your repositories are MIT-licensed, yet you claim that the platform will be non-free (CC-BY-NC). Could you please clarify whether the server source code is or will be made available under this license?

"Pretty apps isn't what you'd use Alan for"

Wouldn't a visual model bulder speed up the creation of all those declarative data models?

It definitely could. However, written language is really powerful. We're still developing new features for the modeling language and keeping the cost of each iteration down is super important for us. A visual editor is something that would definitely help empower our target audience, but right now it would get in the way. I would love building something like that some time in the future though.