From: Chad Perrin <code@...>
Date: 2011-04-04T23:51:03+09:00
Subject: Re: Lambda Shambda

--oTHb8nViIGeoXxdp
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 02:55:04PM +0900, Phillip Gawlowski wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Chad Perrin <code@apotheon.net> wrote:
> >
> > I don't really give a crap what's popular, nor who has said it was
> > popular, when choosing something for merit. =A0I'm also not entirely
> > convinced he thinks popularity is any kind of sign of quality (given
> > his involvement in GHC development, which is nothing at all like
> > Excel), nor that his statement of popularity of Excel as a functional
> > "language" is unbiased, given his employment at Microsoft employee
> > for a dozen years or so.
>=20
> Though, Microsoft Research is a different beast than MS proper (as much
> as a "MS proper" can exist with such a corporation), and doesn't have
> to toe the party line as much as the Office Business Unit would have
> to, for example.

This is true, of course -- but there is still an influence there where
research publications will surely be expected to serve some end Microsoft
executive policy finds worth of approval.  After all, if Microsoft
Research consistently failed to serve Microsoft's bottom line in some
way, it would be shut down.


> >
> > Excel is a *spreadsheet* -- which happens to have a programming
> > language embedded in it (and not a very good one, at that).
>=20
> That's a bit harsh. After all, Excel doesn't have to *be* a language
> VM.
>=20
> Thus, it only needs a DSL, and Excel's DSL is a damned good one, and
> thorough in tackling its problem space. Further, Excel doesn't need to
> be Turing-complete: Spreadsheets have many areas that they can be used
> in, and in pretty much all of them the business rules are too complex,
> or too much of a moving target, to make programming in the more
> traditional sense feasible.

You're not making the same claim here that was originally made.  The
original claim was that MS Excel *is* a "programming language" -- not
that its functionality *includes* a domain specific language (which is a
much narrower claim than the original, in addition to "is" being a whole
different animal from "includes").


>=20
> And that's why MS provides OLE Automation, and makes it relatively easy
> to develop Office add-ins for specific needs.

Sure.  That doesn't change what was actually said prior to this, however.
Reorienting the pro-Excel argument so that it agrees with things others
(including me) have already said does not make the preceding pro-Excel
arguments any less wrong.

--=20
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]

--oTHb8nViIGeoXxdp
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAk2Z154ACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKVbEACaA44tRbU759V5j30d4gD+JCCX
eK8An1hFmhYNJLPq8k1oMYvzYnEAFjrN
=U7+P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--oTHb8nViIGeoXxdp--