Comment by zackbrown | Hacker News Reader

Comment by zackbrown | Hacker News Reader

The author's assessment of the "no-code" and "hybrid tools" landscape is either lazy or a joke. Here are a few more:

No-code tools for apps & websites:

  - Webflow
  - Glide
  - SquareSpace
  - Dreamweaver [1]
  - Visly

Hybrid "designer/developer connectors"

  - Hadron
  - Modulz [2]
  - Interplay [3]
  - Haiku [4]
  - Zeplin
  - Zeroheight [5]
  - InVision DSM [5]

Sad to see this blog post on the front page of HN since it's such a poor representation of this landscape. Hopefully this comment helps in a small way :)

--

[1] yeah it still exists, and yeah it's pretty much still Webflow as a 90's-vintage desktop app.

[2] Modulz' product doesn't exist yet, but they've built hype. Caveat emptor.

[3] Just like Modulz, but from what I've seen there's more execution and less hype.

[4] My company: we pivoted our original "designer/developer connector" into an animation tool — we're launching our new collaboration tool soon.

[5] Sort-of; designer-focus

The remarks about the author detract from Hacker News more than the information in the comment adds to it. Removing those remarks would improve the comment. Adding links to the resources might improve it further but won't make it good Hacker News comment if the remarks remain.

Thanks for the feedback!

"Lazy work" does not mean "lazy person." And "joke" would be better stated as "this article reads suspiciously as astroturfing."

But I see how the blunt call-out of lazy work and tip-toeing around the astroturfing vibes—i.e. the way I worded my comment—could read as a personal attack, and I agree that's not a productive way to approach discourse.

I missed the edit window, but I would amend the first line: s/author/article and s/a joke/intentionally misleading.

The proposed edits don’t assume good faith and don’t contribute to understanding the topic. Instead here we are in the weeds.

The article is misleading. That's either unintentional or intentional.

Per Hanlon's razor, my first hypothesis is the former but we shouldn't rule out the latter. Proactively question good faith but don't proactively doubt it.

Calling out the article as misleading mitigates the damage it causes and thus exactly "contributes to understanding the topic."

Policing remarks detract much more the conversation that a bunch of unlinked resources, which you can google anyway.

The comment only started this conversation about it’s negativity. It created an attractive nuisance. Obviously.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com