3 ms·
This discussion wouldn't be complete without covering Lotus Improv on NeXT. It did two things differently: data, formulaz, and presentation were separate layers
by karmakaze 3y ago
This discussion wouldn't be complete without covering Lotus Improv on NeXT. It did two things differently: data, formulaz, and presentation were separate layers and the formulas weren't applied per cell but rather as a relational invariant between all sets of cells in a direction for the full range. One last thing it used was naming everything with natural names for columns and tables much like a database schema.
The Windows version of Improv wasn't nearly as good, possibly because it seemed too advanced for PC users familiar with 1-2-3, or because it might disrupt an already very profitable revenue stream.
I believe there's a spiritual successor in Quantrix.
- GMoromisato 3y agoAt the time, Improv was hailed as the future of spreadsheets. What happened? I think Improv could only satisfy a subset of Excel use cases. In particular, any non-tabular sheet was hard to do. If you have one tool that does it all, even if imperfectly, why bother learning a second, special tool just for a subset? Note also that it was easier for Excel to superset Improv (e.g., by adding Pivot Tables) than the reverse.
- wslh 3y agoWhat was the conceptual difference with Lotus Notes? That Lotus Improv was based on spreadsheets? I remember Lotus Notes was a very successful product, closer to the low code paradigm. Remember seeing really fast development cycles in old organizations.
- karmakaze 3y agoI just discovered the existence of Javalin[0], a precursor to Improv, that was even more fundamental treating each axis as named 'variable'. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javelin_Software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javelin_Software