81–85 of 85 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Few things are more arrogant than telling someone you're teaching them a lesson... This is a product from 1979! It does not prove me wrong at all . Trade offs are different today. Decisions that applied then don't apply now. The quoted text from TFA is wrong and simplistic.
> Maintaining a dependency graph would give us the most efficient updates, but it’s often an overkill for a spreadsheet. It's not overkill at all. In fact, it's absolutely necessary for all but the simplest toy examples.
Isn’t the existence & success of visicalc a direct counter to this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Few things are more arrogant than telling someone you're teaching them a lesson... This is a product from 1979! It does not prove me wrong at all . Trade offs are different today. Decisions that applied then don't apply now. The quoted text from TFA is wrong and simplistic.
Give it up man.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t the existence & success of visicalc a direct counter to this?
It absolutely is, it's bizarre seeing HNers crapping over approaches used by one of the most successful products in history (Visicalc was literally a system seller) as a "toy" approach.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't dismiss Visicalc at all. In fact, I even said it had fantastic success. I dismissed the article's claim that maintaining a dependency graph is overkill for a spreadsheet. That's a false statement. It might have been true at the time, but it's not true today. The phrase as written in TFA is poor form and misleading to beginners.
[flagged]
I don't want to ban you because you've also posted good things, but bad things do more badness than good things do goodness. Unfortunately.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.