2 ms·

Yup, but you can make it do the job and that's enough for the majority.

• zozbot234 5y ago
  It's only "enough" to them because they don't grok the failure modes. Which is basically the story of almost all "no-code" or "low-code" tools. You can do "low-code" and even "no-code" right, but it basically has to be a DSL that's cleanly defined in terms of some other programming language with sensible semantics. That way when the DSL fails to do what you expect it to (as it invariably will at some point), you at least get to pick up the pieces and carry on. But that's not how Excel is built, or most similar tools.
  • solarmist 5y ago
    Preaching to the choir, but mostly they don't care about any of that.
• monocasa 5y ago
  I mean, we're renaming genes because of how much excel has been corrupting data. https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/6/21355674/human-genes-rename-microsoft-excel-misreading-dates https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/6/21355674/human-genes-renam... I agree that there's tons of value in the paradigm (more than a lot of people on hn would admit), but excel particularly has way more sharp edges than people know.
• agent86 5y ago
  It's not just that it can do the job, but that the majority has access to Excel. There may be better tools/platforms to solve a given problem, but in most cases the rank and file don't have access to them or permissions to do what they want. "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail."