IMO it is better to keep the barriers to entry as low as possible for prototyping. Letting domain experts build what they have in mind themselves, on a shoestring, is a powerful ability.
Most such prototypes get tossed because of a flaw in the idea, not because they lacked professional software help. If something clicks the prototype can get rebuilt properly. Raising the barriers to entry means significantly fewer things get tried. My 2c.
> IMO it is better to keep the barriers to entry as low as possible for prototyping
Not in an industry where prototypes very often get thrown into production because decision makers don't know anything about the value of good tech, security, etc
It's perfectly fine for most MVPs to go into production. Most SaaS software is solved. Prototypes are outsourcing the hard parts around security. The hard part is making a sale and finding the right fit. Spending 4x the cost on a product that never makes a sale is bad economics. This app isn't remotely harmful, so do you care to make an argument for why it shouldn't exist?
Should decision makers be more informed? Yes, of course, but that's not an argument for gatekeeping. We shouldn't be gatekeeping software or the web. Not through licensure or some arbitrary meaning of "effort". That will do nothing but stifle job growth and I'd very much like to keep developers employed.
Most such prototypes get tossed because of a flaw in the idea, not because they lacked professional software help. If something clicks the prototype can get rebuilt properly. Raising the barriers to entry means significantly fewer things get tried. My 2c.