Re: why>?

Tech-Archive recommends: Fix windows errors by optimizing your registry

aaron.kempf@xxxxxxxxx wrote...
I've never said that everyone in the world should be WRITING access
applications.

Im saying that there DOES need to be able 10 times as many skilled
reporting people at most companies.
....

Nice sentence. Wanna try again to make it understandable?

I'll take a guess that you're saying most companies should have 10
times as many people as now skilled at producing reports. This may be
why you can't keep jobs very long at successful companies. You have no
clue about cost vs benefit. Companies don't exist to produce internal
reports. A few exist to produce reports they sell to clients, but for
the most part companies exist to sell goods and/or services. It's
generally a good idea not to operate with too much overhead, and
increasing the number of people whose jobs are mostly producing
internal reports is a bad idea.

Maybe you and other database consulting parasites would benefit from
greatly increased numbers of employees producing reports, but it
doesn't seem any other companies or their customers would benefit.

I don't believe that Excel's popularity means that it is inherently
'easier to use'
....

Fine you can believe that. You can also believe what you want about the
Easer Bunny. Unless and until you start demonstrating IN DETAIL how any
of the problems posted in this ng would be more easily or quickly
solved with Access or other DBMSs, you'd just ranting. Put up or shut
up.

And for the record... looking for the min value in a text file?

Access MDB can do it in about 1/10th of the time that Excel can.
and if you're ALWAYS need to import the same file?

Details? Your claims are as empty as your head. How do you do this
without importing the text file into a table?

Usually importing files with different filenames. Then what?

Access is easily automatable; but Excel takes a ton of spaghetti code--
that is uncentralized and unmanageable.
....

You may not know how to centralize it. All it takes is putting XLA
add-ins in network shares and adding OPEN# (# is a placeholder for
numerals) values to the Excel setting key in the registry. EASILY
centralize if you know what you're doing. But you don't really know how
to use Excel, do you?

As for manageable, do you mean formulas or VBA? There's a bit of work
involved in verifying formulas, but it's not much more difficult than
other functional programming languages. If one know what one's doing
(note that I'm using 'one' rather than 'you'), it's not too difficult
to use revision control with text listings of Excel workbook formulas.

If you mean VBA, then wouldn't Access suffer similarly. You've
mentioned in the past that you'd write udfs to handle calculations that
weren't built into Access. That'd mean using VBA, no? If VBA is OK for
Access, it's be OK for Excel, no? If not, why not?

Well i can RIGHT-CLICK 'link' or 'import' a text file.

From where? Not from the Open dialog in Access. From a database dialog
for an open databse. You keep skipping the details.

OK, this initiates a similar import process to Excel's. Once that data
is an Excel work***, all a user needs to do is highlight a column or
several columns and change the AutoSum function in Excel's Status Bar
to find sum, count, average, min, max, etc. A few mouse clicks. Getting
the same result in Access involves writing and running queries. No
where near as quick or as simple.

I can FTP a text file without writing a SINGLE LINE OF CODE.

Also in Excel, which provides access to ftp servers via both Open and
Save dialogs.

I can delete rows out of a text file.

Even easier to do in Excel.

I can write import / export specs-- with a really really simple WIZARD
that makes importing and exporting text files about 10,000 times easier
than Access than in Excel.

For text export, unlikely since Excel can save WYSIWYG.

But do provide DETAILS to prove your point.

Excel requires users to memorize hundreds of functions; it doesn't have
as good of intellisense as VB for example-- you can't use Enums in a
Excel work***.. can you?

Not throung Excel 2003, but you can in Excel 2007.

Lists and comboboxes??
....

Data validation lists or from the Forms toolbar. If by comboboxes you
mean combination drop-down edit boxes, it can be done, but it does take
some work. If the entry cell were G5 and the standard list were in
X31:X38, you'd add the formula =G5 in X39 and define a name like
COMBOLIST referring to

=$X$31:IF(OR(T($X$39)="",$X$39=$X$31:$X$38),$X$38,$X$39)

You can now use the drop-down list or enter something not in the list.
If you do the latter, the new entry is added to the list. This only
works for a single different entry at a time.

if Excel had MUCH MUCH MUCH more powerful CELLS. Can you easily make a
cell into a combobox? I mean-- is it possible; is it easy; do 1/2 of
the users in Excel know how to do that?

But should all Excel users be trying to add comboboxes? I don't think
so. Just like not all Access USERS should be developers.

Excel just can't solve any of the worlds programs-- because it isn't
specialized enough.

Generality is Excel's strength. You just don't know how to take
advantage of it.

It doesn't have REAL DATA ENTRY tools like format masks and inputmaskst
and *** like that.

Granted. Excel has crappy data entry validation.

You can't alter the base data in Excel-- you can only edit 'how it is
displayed'

?

You can't edit cells? Since when?

Excel needs the ability to either edit VALUES or edit FORMUALS.

How is it you've missed this feature. Or do you have more idiosyncratic
definitions for 'edit', 'values' and 'formulas'.

Excel SHOULD be able to be used as a complete ETL tool.

Why?

Excel has poor text processing tools, but that's to be expected since
it's intended to be a numeric calculation tool. But the lack of decent
text processing tools pretty much excludes it from serious
consideration as an ETL tool. If you knew any scripting languages, you
could use them. They're much better at this than Excel or any other
spread*** would ever be.

I mean seriously here. To make Excel better able to suit your needs--
it should have MUCH MORE POWER while being MUCH EASIER to use.
....

I wouldn't complain if it did become more powerful and a FEW things
became easier (trying to make too many things 'easier' would just make
it even more bloated), but for what I use it for it already meets my
needs. If you want it to do different things, then no surprise you may
have a different opinion.

and I am not a leper.

No, just a fool.

.

Quantcast