4 ms·
I fully concur. This is an excellent summary and suggestion for future progress. The barriers to moving beyond Excel can be overcome, but it will take some ser
by s_q_b 10y ago
I fully concur. This is an excellent summary and suggestion for future progress.
The barriers to moving beyond Excel can be overcome, but it will take some serious effort on many fronts. Both Excel and SQL embody genius concepts, but are such poor implementations that it is easy to conflate the cruft with the advantages.
- jlg23 10y agoSQL is not an implementation but a specification and thus cannot be compared to Excel, a very specific implementation of non-monotonic dataflow programming. Regarding your "stockholm syndrome" comment above: Someone in his car hears a PSA about "some guy wrong-way driving" on the very road he is on and thinks "one? hundreds!". Unless you can beef up your argumentation you are that guy.
- EdHominem 10y ago> Unless you can beef up your argumentation you are that guy. That's fallacious too. I can be right, even if my argument is incorrect or unconvincing. Warren Buffet and Nate Silver are both driving against traffic and both of them are righter than everyone else combined. > SQL [...] cannot be compared to Excel What Excel and SQL have in common is that they're both a first attempt at a solution to (different) problems, and they've been too successful to properly iterate on. That's why everyone uses some proprietary extensions to SQL and everyone extends Excel with VB or C#.
- Lio 10y ago> SQL is not an implementation but a specification For clarification, is the GP referring to Microsoft SQL Server when then they say 'SQL' or do they actually mean SQL? Microsoft's product naming convention is confusing IMHO.
- eon1 10y agoAlmost all of these are done or do-able, though. They're just not right there on the surface.