Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

One in five genetics papers contains errors thanks to Excel (2016)

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 267 posts

Re: One in five genetics papers contains errors thanks to Excel (2016)

#91

Post by sitkack »

shermantanktop wrote: post #72
smartmic wrote: post #50

The problem with Excel is that it tries to do almost everything in one software tool: front-end (editing, presentation), analysis, semantic modeling, data storage/database. Almost all reasonable engineers see that there is something wrong with such an approach. But almost all everyday computer users think that this is the way computing has to be. Sometimes I wonder why even I voluntarily open it for certain tasks - a…

My problem with excel is that I love it too much, even though I know that I maybe shouldn’t. It hits some perfect point between structured and unstructured data that is conducive to just filling in cells and seeing what happens. I say “I shouldn’t” because the off-ramp from a working solution to a proper productized code-based approach can be very painful.

Spreadsheet are wonderful and powerful, Excel is ass. Love the concept, hate the implementation.

Re: One in five genetics papers contains errors thanks to Excel (2016)

#92

Post by ClassyJacket »

__mharrison__ wrote: post #87

One wonders if these scientists took a week to learn sufficient Python and pandas, how much better the world would be? (Certainly possible, I teach "I don't want to be a programmer"-types all the time. Taught a class this week in fact.)

I work with this type of scientists, supporting them in an IT capacity. Many of them do try to learn Python, I've been quite impressed by it, but realistically Excel isn't going away any time soon regardless. Sometimes it's the right tool for the job.

Re: One in five genetics papers contains errors thanks to Excel (2016)

#93

Post by shagie »

bikenaga wrote: post #82
shagie wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a lover of prefix and postfix notation, there is an unambiguous parsing of each of those that does not deepened on any order of operations. Neither lisp nor forth have the question at all - you can only write it exactly as you mean it. (- (expt 3 2)) is always -9 without needing to ask which has higher precedence. (expt -3 2) is likewise always 9. There is no question if - is a binary or unary operator in prefix n…

Maybe something's wrong with my terminal. In dc: 3 _ 2 ^ p gives 0 _3 2 ^ p gives 9 3 2 ^ _ p gives 0 5 _ p gives 0 _5 p gives -5 You didn't intend that I should get those zeros, right?

     ~ % dc -v
     dc 6.5.0
     Copyright (c) 2018-2023 Gavin D. Howard and contributors
     Report bugs at: https://git.gavinhoward.com/gavin/bc

     This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
     ~ % dc   
     3 _ 2 ^ p
     9
     _3 2 ^ p
     9
     3 2 ^ _ p
     -9
     5 _ p
     -5
     _5 p
     -5
     (control-D)
The version that I have appears to have _ parsed as an operator in addition to the negation of a numeric constant.

Re: One in five genetics papers contains errors thanks to Excel (2016)

#94

Post by DiscourseFan »

bikenaga wrote: post #61
mobilio wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's 9! Check it: https://www.mathplanet.com/education/pre-algebra/explore-and... . "You also have to pay attention to the signs when you multiply and divide. There are two simple rules to remember: When you multiply a negative number by a positive number then the product is always negative. When you multiply two negative numbers or two positive numbers then the product is always positive." So basically you have…

No - in a subtle way, you're assuming that the unary minus has precedence, when the point is that it doesn't. You're right that "thing^2" means "thing times thing", but in "-3^2", what is it that is being squared? To write it, as you did, as "(-3) x (-3)", assumes that in "-3^2" the thing being squared is "-3". But that in turn assumes that the unary minus is done before the square. By the standard mathematical conve…

Isn't this treating 3 as something that can be analyzed from -3? Like -3 is the union of 3 and the (-), and not something onto itself. Ought it to be the case that negative is more than just a sign? Like, I think 3 should be ontologically distinct from -3, even if the addition of 3 and -3 = 0. Idk, I don't have a reason for this, it feels right for some reason.

Re: One in five genetics papers contains errors thanks to Excel (2016)

#95

Post by fn-mote »

bc_programming wrote: post #79
bikenaga wrote: post #48

An annoyance with spreadsheets that deterred me from ever using them in teaching is that they've perpetuated a arithmetic order-of-precedence bug. ("Bug" in the sense that it contradicts long-standing mathematical convention.) If you type -3^2 in a cell and press ENTER, the spreadsheet tell you it's "9". It should be "-9"; in math, exponentiation has precedence over unary minus, so you square 3, then negate the resul…

This issue seems like partly an artifact of the invented binary operator ^. In math exponents are superscripts and there's no binary operator- it's part of the term. But for text on computers, binary operators ended up being fabricated for the things you couldn't represent directly. The caret is common and was the first one to appear, but doubled multiplication signs is another one. Traditionally, binary operators ha…

In my country we teach the same rules in math class. Blaming it on “unary vs binary” was a stretch. Next you’re going to blame it on the lexer for producing the -3 as a single term instead of two. (Which WOULD explain something, but… fix it?!)

In my country we use a horizontal line with a dot above and below to indicate in-line division in lower grades. Exactly like the computer /.

It’s not like there was no precedent here.

Re: One in five genetics papers contains errors thanks to Excel (2016)

#96

Post by Dalewyn »

ravetcofx wrote: post #54
smartmic wrote: post #50

The problem with Excel is that it tries to do almost everything in one software tool: front-end (editing, presentation), analysis, semantic modeling, data storage/database. Almost all reasonable engineers see that there is something wrong with such an approach. But almost all everyday computer users think that this is the way computing has to be. Sometimes I wonder why even I voluntarily open it for certain tasks - a…

Except that it's proprietary and will eventually be un-maintained and stop working. But spreadsheets, in general, fall under the Lindy effect and open source software will continue it for centuries to come.

You might have had a point in the days of .xls, but Excel by default uses .xlsx now which is just XML packaged inside a .zip archive if I recall.

And yes, Excel still fully supports .xls too.

I fear whatever format LibreOffice uses will die first, case in point I don't even remember what it's called even though I should as a computer nerd.

Re: One in five genetics papers contains errors thanks to Excel (2016)

#97

Post by lazide »

sitkack wrote: post #91
shermantanktop wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My problem with excel is that I love it too much, even though I know that I maybe shouldn’t. It hits some perfect point between structured and unstructured data that is conducive to just filling in cells and seeing what happens. I say “I shouldn’t” because the off-ramp from a working solution to a proper productized code-based approach can be very painful.

Spreadsheet are wonderful and powerful, Excel is ass. Love the concept, hate the implementation.

Unfortunately, it’s also industry standard ass.

Re: One in five genetics papers contains errors thanks to Excel (2016)

#98

Post by Yossarrian22 »

ravetcofx wrote: post #54
smartmic wrote: post #50

The problem with Excel is that it tries to do almost everything in one software tool: front-end (editing, presentation), analysis, semantic modeling, data storage/database. Almost all reasonable engineers see that there is something wrong with such an approach. But almost all everyday computer users think that this is the way computing has to be. Sometimes I wonder why even I voluntarily open it for certain tasks - a…

Except that it's proprietary and will eventually be un-maintained and stop working. But spreadsheets, in general, fall under the Lindy effect and open source software will continue it for centuries to come.

Its easier for me to imagine a world in which AI makes spreadsheets invisible to the modern person than it is to imagine a world in which Excel isn't the de facto spreadsheet.

Re: One in five genetics papers contains errors thanks to Excel (2016)

#99

Post by faresahmed »

smartmic wrote: post #50

The problem with Excel is that it tries to do almost everything in one software tool: front-end (editing, presentation), analysis, semantic modeling, data storage/database. Almost all reasonable engineers see that there is something wrong with such an approach. But almost all everyday computer users think that this is the way computing has to be. Sometimes I wonder why even I voluntarily open it for certain tasks - a…

Excel can also send mail through VBA scripts, thus satisfying Zawinski's Law[1].

[1] http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/Z/Zawinskis-Law.html

Re: One in five genetics papers contains errors thanks to Excel (2016)

#100

Post by wizzwizz4 »

Dalewyn wrote: post #96
ravetcofx wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that it's proprietary and will eventually be un-maintained and stop working. But spreadsheets, in general, fall under the Lindy effect and open source software will continue it for centuries to come.

You might have had a point in the days of .xls, but Excel by default uses .xlsx now which is just XML packaged inside a .zip archive if I recall. And yes, Excel still fully supports .xls too. I fear whatever format LibreOffice uses will die first, case in point I don't even remember what it's called even though I should as a computer nerd.

MS-OOXML is barely an open format. Have you tried implementing it? ECMA-376 part 1 is over 5000 pages, and there are four parts to it! (Part 1 contains an extra bit about SpreadsheetML, but by that point we were two zips deep. I turned back ere I got lost.)

The OpenDocument formats, meanwhile, are older, simpler and better than their MS-OOXML equivalents. (The ODF spec is 1041 pages altogether – 215 pages of that are the spreadsheet formula language.) LibreOffice's implementation is a little janky, sure, but I can edit OpenDocument files by hand. Try doing that to a MS-OOXML file. (Good luck.)

Post reply on HN