David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*)This is a terrible take and you should really know better. It's not different than chastising people who use higher level programming languages or Dreamweaver to make a website instead of studying HTML.
I feel like you didn’t read past the quoted section before replying with a needlessly confrontational reply.
It is very different. If you give someone a low-code end-user programming environment, they have a tool the helps them to unambiguously express their intent. It gives them a tool to do so concisely, often more concisely (at the expense of generality), which empowers the user. This is a valuable thing to do.
We should all be able to agree that giving people a way to use natural language to build little apps, tools, and automations that solve problems nobody is going to build a custom solution for is a good thing.
No, I disagree with that. Giving them a natural-language interface and you remove agency from them. The system, not the user, is responsible for filling in the blanks. And the system does so in a way that does not permit the user to learn. Rather than using the tool badly and then improving as a result of their failure, the system fills in the blanks in arbitrary ways.
A natural-language interface and an easy-to-learn interface are not the same thing. There is enormous value in creating easy-to-learn interfaces that empower users but giving them interfaces that use natural language is not the best (or even a very good) way of doing this.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the