41–50 of 112 posts
I wonder how a programming language “extension” to Excel works together with the fact that the excel language is localized. Will the lambda function names be similarly localized?
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It can pause and ask you to temporarily attach another hard disk. Could be infinite as long as one can afford buying disks.
But the amount of raw material on the planet needed for manufacturing more disks is finite. The amount of raw material in the universe is finite at a given point in time (it could be infinite over time, we don't know if time is infinite either). I think we've already established (especially over the past year) that fiat money is infinite. The Turing machine is a mathematical model. Infinity only exists in the world o…
This isn't obvious to me, would you elaborate?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the amount of raw material on the planet needed for manufacturing more disks is finite. The amount of raw material in the universe is finite at a given point in time (it could be infinite over time, we don't know if time is infinite either). I think we've already established (especially over the past year) that fiat money is infinite. The Turing machine is a mathematical model. Infinity only exists in the world o…
> The physical world is by definition finite This isn't obvious to me, would you elaborate?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It can pause and ask you to temporarily attach another hard disk. Could be infinite as long as one can afford buying disks.
But the amount of raw material on the planet needed for manufacturing more disks is finite. The amount of raw material in the universe is finite at a given point in time (it could be infinite over time, we don't know if time is infinite either). I think we've already established (especially over the past year) that fiat money is infinite. The Turing machine is a mathematical model. Infinity only exists in the world o…
That's the biggest issue with LET / LAMBDA at the moment. Users are terrified of the name manager and simply do not understand what they are for or what "scope" means. On top of that, copying content from one workbook to another leads to names being copied over as well, which is how I often end up with ancient names such as FXRATE1997
> The existing Name Manager in Excel allows any formula to be given a name. If we name our function PYTHAGORAS, then a formula such as PYTHAGORAS(3,4) evaluates to 5. Once named, you call the function by name, eliminating the need to repeat entire formulas when you want to use them. That's the biggest issue with LET / LAMBDA at the moment. Users are terrified of the name manager and simply do not understand what they…
It could of course be a reflection of my teaching ability, but it always seems to be a tough one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Power Query is only a thing in Excel for Windows though, it’s likely it will eventually be replaced with something cross platform. And if you don’t want to make .NET load every time you open your workbook, you have this.
That doesn't sound like a reason to me. What in the fundamental nature of Power Query prevents it from being cross platform? Or, conversely, what prevents something new that is cross platform from working basically the same as Power Query if it must be strictly incompatible? It's possible we're not talking about the same thing. Microsoft has slapped "Power" on so many different things. When I google "Power Query" I g…
I get that calling code by its name can make it sound scary, but this whole notion of it being 'easy because it is not code' seems to be a big fat lie for comfort. Same goes for the magic no-code systems where code is replaced with 'expressions' or graphical 'workflows' which essentially is exactly the same thing, only shaped slightly differently.
This makes me wonder if it wouldn't be much better if we could focus on making people be able to code and have more 'coding capacity' instead of having less of that capacity and then reducing it even more by using some of it to create 'let us pretend this is not code'-applications.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the amount of raw material on the planet needed for manufacturing more disks is finite. The amount of raw material in the universe is finite at a given point in time (it could be infinite over time, we don't know if time is infinite either). I think we've already established (especially over the past year) that fiat money is infinite. The Turing machine is a mathematical model. Infinity only exists in the world o…
> The physical world is by definition finite This isn't obvious to me, would you elaborate?