4 ms·
You are mistaking "being commonly used for this task" with "good at doing"
by sc68cal 2y ago
You are mistaking "being commonly used for this task" with "good at doing"
- tempaway64457 2y agoReplacing this excel sheet with a 'proper' system would cost between $5million and $20million probably, depending on what sort of consultancy delivered it
- datadrivenangel 2y agoAnd would be inflexible, and maybe still wrong, and not necessarily more transparent... So it may mean several extra million dollars per year in ongoing maintenance if things turn out typically... Excel has many issues, but the cost of replacing it is surprisingly high.
- TMWNN 2y ago>And would be inflexible, and maybe still wrong, and not necessarily more transparent... I'm going through this right now. Not anywhere in this scale, but just in terms of deciding whether to move an order-tracking/accounting system I've built in Excel to a "real" database. The database I am considering (Panorama X for Mac) is quite inexpensive, I've heard very good things about it, and has a spreadsheet-like UI. However, I've used Excel enough to know that I haven't tapped more than a small fraction of its ability, especially things like Power Query. As much as I loathe VBA, what if the cost of moving to a "real" database isn't the up-front cost, but the longer-term inflexibility of Panorama (and, pretty much, anything else in my price range) compared to the beast that is Excel?
- tokyovigilante 2y agoProbably why the consultancy who produced the report referenced here was delighted to point it out.
- Retric 2y agoAnything commonly used for a task it’s good enough for that task even if “much better” options exist. Nail guns have a lot of downsides vs using screws, but being much faster and cheap offsets quite a lot.
- craigmcnamara 2y agoJust bad enough