It's a perfect analogy. Don't sell yourself short. Look, the following things are true.
1) This industry absolutely has the capability create more tools like Excel that are both extremely empowering and orders of magnitude easier than what we think of as coding.
2) Unfortunately, there's a strong, likely frequently subconscious, incentive to definitely not do this, since it carries a strong danger of IT making itself "obsolete."
> 2) Unfortunately, there's a strong, likely frequently subconscious, incentive to definitely not do this, since it carries a strong danger of IT making itself "obsolete."
I can't think of a single case that this has ever been the decision making process when creating a product.
If you look at the myriad of available tools that trends in this direction, in all fields, you'll realize that the industry is littered with both successful and failed examples, ERP systems alone are a huge market.
It's just that people wanted to replace actual convoluted general purpose logic known as coding, that they ran into problem that could not be addressed by some GUI. And that no-code solutions that exist today propagandize about.
I would think the incentive to make a bazillion dollars if you did this sucessfully would outweigh your purported frequently subconscious disincentive.
Plus there are other people in this comments thread saying they are working for companies that are (they claim) doing so. Not to mention all the past attempts to do so over the past 40 years. Is the idea that those companies are intentionally not doing it as well as they could, because of their allegience to not making the field of IT obsolete?
The idea that we collectively could easily be making software construction toolkits for non-programmers that would make "IT obsolete", it's an easy problem, but we just choose not to... is a conspiracy theory.
I'd argue there's a massive incentive to do this if you can because then every other company in the world can downsize their engineering staff and take advantage of the no code solution that you're selling. Even if you sell at an absurd price like $1M/year but it allows a company to replace 10 programmer, it'd probably be worth it.
1) This industry absolutely has the capability create more tools like Excel that are both extremely empowering and orders of magnitude easier than what we think of as coding.
2) Unfortunately, there's a strong, likely frequently subconscious, incentive to definitely not do this, since it carries a strong danger of IT making itself "obsolete."
(Not judging here, just observing)