Will Vibe Coding End Low-Code Development?

Recently, I attended the Baidu Smart Cloud Conference, where I encountered various products, including a low-code platform called “Baidu Comate,” which promotes the idea that anyone can create a small application. This made me wonder: can such tools truly transform everyone into developers, or do they merely replace coding with dragging and dropping components, leaving the barrier to entry unchanged?

This brings to mind another trending concept: Vibe Coding (AI programming). Unlike low-code, which involves assembling components, Vibe Coding allows users to generate code by simply stating their requirements in natural language. This approach seems more direct and enjoyable.

But is this mode a genuine breakthrough in software development or just a fleeting illusion?

The Low-Code Journey

To answer this, we must first reflect on the low-code movement. A few years ago, low-code was a hot topic as companies pursued digital transformation, leading to an increasing demand for applications that outpaced the supply of engineers. Low-code platforms promised a captivating slogan: “Everyone is a developer,” suggesting that one could create applications without learning programming or complex syntax, simply by dragging and dropping.

Platforms like Microsoft’s PowerApps, Outsystems, and others emerged under this premise. However, practical use revealed significant issues. Engineers often found low-code tools cumbersome, preferring to write code instead. Non-engineers, while seemingly catered to, struggled with the logic required to build functional applications. Many found themselves unable to create complete applications and ultimately abandoned the tools.

Despite the hype, low-code platforms have failed to produce notable consumer-facing products, primarily serving B2B needs like approval workflows and reporting tools. Users often reverted to Excel, which remains simpler and more user-friendly. The promise that “everyone is a developer” has not materialized, leaving low-code’s commitments unfulfilled.

If low-code faltered, could Vibe Coding be another mirage, or might it yield different results?

Vibe Coding, a term popular among developers, refers to using natural language to converse with AI, which then writes code automatically. For example, stating “create a registration page” can lead to a fully functional code generation. This contrasts sharply with low-code’s component assembly, offering a vastly different experience.

In the past year, tools like Cursor, Claude Code, and Trade Solo have emerged, showcasing real-world applications. Some startups without engineers have successfully built websites using Vibe Coding, while students and journalists have utilized it for academic purposes and algorithm testing.

These examples suggest that Vibe Coding may serve as a new productivity tool accessible to all.

The Experience of Vibe Coding

Personally, I find that Vibe Coding transforms coding into a conversational process, allowing for rapid demo generation—a level of satisfaction that low-code cannot match. GitHub Copilot has reported that developers using it experience an average productivity boost of 55%, highlighting its potential efficiency gains.

However, challenges remain. Many developers liken coding to drawing cards, as the outcome can be unpredictable. Concerns about the quality and maintainability of AI-generated code are widespread, with over 60% of engineers expressing skepticism in a Stack Overflow survey.

Regarding accessibility, low-code’s claim that “everyone is a developer” proved misleading; users quickly realized that those without technical knowledge still faced obstacles, while tech-savvy individuals found the tools cumbersome. Vibe Coding may sound easier, but the reality remains: “Those who don’t understand code struggle, and those who do find it frustrating.” While ordinary users can create simple demos, developing stable products still requires overcoming significant barriers.

Moreover, a similar illusion persists: the belief that “ordinary people can create the next big hit.” Despite the enthusiasm, no significant products have emerged from Vibe Coding platforms. The reality is that writing code is just the first step; valuable products depend on defining needs and insights, which AI cannot replace. Most creations from Vibe Coding are still rudimentary toys.

Another point of concern is user experience. Many new platforms have poor user interfaces, making registration and activation confusing. As a result, many users abandon the process before realizing the platform’s potential. Additionally, limited ecosystems and agent availability lead to low user retention and engagement.

Thus, Vibe Coding presents a clear contradiction: it indeed makes coding easier and more enjoyable but also uncovers numerous issues, including code quality, product barriers, and ecosystem limitations. Without addressing these challenges, the promise of “everyone coding” may remain a fleeting trend.

The Future of Vibe Coding

With all these challenges in mind, where is Vibe Coding headed? I believe it will quickly overshadow low-code platforms. The key factor is the change in interaction methods. Low-code fundamentally relies on manual operations, while Vibe Coding bypasses this barrier, akin to ordering pre-assembled IKEA furniture instead of assembling it yourself. The efficiency and experience differences are profound.

Consequently, I foresee low-code being marginalized. It won’t disappear immediately; it will still find utility in specific enterprise scenarios requiring stability, like approval workflows and reporting systems. However, in broader markets, particularly those targeting individual users, low-code will struggle to find relevance.

Moreover, Vibe Coding’s value lies in its early-stage capabilities. Its primary advantage is reducing trial-and-error costs, enabling rapid demo creation. Previously, an idea might take engineers weeks to validate, but now it can be achieved in hours. This is a significant productivity boost for startups, product managers, and even those without technical backgrounds. However, to develop a stable product, one must return to engineering practices, teamwork, and ecosystem considerations.

I also observe that future competition will hinge on the completeness of ecosystems. Open-source platforms like Dify and n8n have built strong defenses through plugins and community engagement. Large companies that focus solely on individual features will find it challenging to catch up. For instance, n8n has surpassed 100,000 GitHub stars, while Dify has over 70,000 stars, indicating robust user contributions and community activity.

In essence, while tools will proliferate, sustainability will depend on ecosystem strength. Future platforms may evolve into “agent application stores,” accepting only products developed by professional teams, providing distribution channels, computing power, and cloud resources. This shift could resemble the App Store model, where innovative ideas from small teams are refined into scalable products by larger companies.

In conclusion, I view Vibe Coding as a crucial element in the future software industry, serving as an incubator for early-stage ideas and a starting point in the ecosystem chain. The question then becomes: has Vibe Coding lowered the barriers, or is it reshaping them? I lean towards the latter. Vibe Coding reflects both the limitless possibilities AI brings and the reality that while barriers may change form, they never truly vanish. Whether it becomes a new starting point for “everyone to create tools” or remains an illusion where “ordinary people cannot produce quality tools” is a question worth observing in the coming years.