Ask HN: Do engineers like the term low-code?

Re:Ask HN: Do engineers like the term low-code? by muzani on Tuesday June 15, 2021 @09:43PM (#27523969)

A term is a term. We've lived with worse, like "master-slave" and "male/female connector". As long as it's clear what it does and isn't vague like "dependency injection".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ask HN: Do engineers like the term low-code? by BuenosAir on Wednesday June 16, 2021 @01:39AM (#27525259)

What is the problem with male/female connector ? What is the generalized replacement words ?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ask HN: Do engineers like the term low-code? by muzani on Wednesday June 16, 2021 @02:12AM (#27525410)

Nothing wrong. Nor is there anything wrong with "low code". Just the visual of putting a male into a female is a little crude.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ask HN: Do engineers like the term low-code? by bad_good_guy on Wednesday June 16, 2021 @08:15AM (#27527621)

Crude? The same terminology used to describe plant morphology? Don't project your own views please

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ask HN: Do engineers like the term low-code? by quickthrower2 on Wednesday June 16, 2021 @07:04AM (#27527103)

dependency injection is specific enough for me. it's just saying that anything a class depends on is provided to the class (injected) rather than created by the class itself.

[ Parent | on HN ]