Let me preface this by saying: I have the upmost respect for the Webflow developers and designers...they've created a highly-functional web app with the purpose of enabling creators...the process to make such a full-featured web-browser product with such a range of capability is astounding.<p>That said, I disagree with the implication that Webflow, and similar products, solve the problems of code, e.g., the phrase "Do xyz without writing a line of code". Knowledge of code does constrain non-developers, but in the end, that is not the <i>hard</i> part. To use a quick example: the mechanics of baking responsiveness into a new site from scratch is significantly easier than the conceptual process of "What information and features should be prominent, or excised, in the mobile view of our website?"...and in my opinion, that latter problem is something that people can get into without knowing how to write code.<p>So despite the technical strength of the Webflow product, I don't think that it makes things easier in the end. Instead of "code", a newbie has to learn a whole new interface, a whole new set of iconography/terms (used for buttons, subheads, etc.), and last but not least, a whole new set of quirks inherent to the Webflow program. And when they become experts at this, they have spent 50-90% of their cognitive ability mastering Webflow, and the remainder understanding the creative and technical process of web development.<p>At some point, isn't it just better to learn <i>some</i> code? Not 10 years worth, but something in between that and "0 lines of code". I've used Webflow, and I'll repeat again, it is an excellent web product in execution and design...but the problem it attempts to tackle is just too <i>big</i>, and the abstractions it offers may ended up hindering creators in the medium-to-long run.