Thanks. As the article's author (and first time writing something that hits HN) it's been interesting seeing which parts of the article have struck a nerve and which parts have gone through to the keeper.
While I have you here, I have to say I still don't understand the connection you're making between PowerFX and compatibility with existing deployment systems. I understand that a low-code platform that spits out an app in some sort of standard format, like source code or a docker image, would facilitate that integration, but where does PowerFX come in?
- business users build apps using a graphical low-code interface,
- these then convert to PowerFX source code that goes into the enterprise's source control system.
- The enterprise IT team tests the code, re-writes key components and deploys.
- And these changes are then reflected back into the low-code app development environment.
This allows business users to contribute domain expertise and IT to maintain their quality and governance role.
Needless to say, this is non-trivial from a tech perspective but, in my view, is a better approach than an enterprise having a separate deployment and governance framework for low-code/RPA apps than for their other custom applications developed in Java/C++ etc.
1. Common code format across the Power platform, and
2. the branding MS was using to describe everything that would be put under source control.
I have some doubts about whether the second point is true.
This article (https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/power-platform/power-fx/ove...) discuss PowerFX stored as YAML files under source control.
And this article which predates the PowerFX announcement (https://powerapps.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/source-code-files...) discusses UI YAML files under source control.
But nowhere does it say that they are branding the UI YAML files under the PowerFX moniker.