Post #1506685
2025-10-25 11:12 UTC
Replies (5)
-
@don@chaos.social 2025-10-25 11:21
@noboilerplate Counterargument: I think it's programming, but a type that makes it nearly impossible to follow good practices. Looking at this case it's pretty equal opportunity. ;) https://theconversation.com/the-reinhart-rogoff-error-or-how-not-to-excel-at-economics-13646
-
@xkummerer@chaos.social 2025-10-25 11:24
@noboilerplate it's turing complete - so it is "real" by any useful standard
-
@hannah@moonserver.yorha.nexus 2025-10-25 11:36
@noboilerplate@namtao.com the age old question of "is it a programming language" or not! No matter how one slices it: there are cases that will inevitably fall under the definition... Even though one tried to exclude it. "A programming language needs to be Turing complete!" Okay? Excel is turing complete (with lambda). Now what? Let's be more pedantic: is a recipe a programming language for humans? It would theoretically fulfill all requirements to be one: Set of instructions, variables, the whole deal... (Even with differences in output because humans compile food differently!) (Sorry... Got carried away a little :neobot_laugh_sweat:)
-
@joshsusser@autistics.life 2025-10-25 15:19
@noboilerplate Well, he's not most programmers, but Alan Kay said the same thing. Spreadsheet programming is definitely real programming – it's dataflow programming with some control flow made visible. And he also said that spreadsheet programmers outnumbered all other programmers, and that was about 35 years ago. (I was lucky enough to work with him at Apple and he was always saying assumption-busting stuff like that.)
-
@janriemer@floss.social 2025-10-25 16:11
@noboilerplate Excel = Reactive programming :awesome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_programming