I wish we had a spreadsheet today that leaned heavily into structured data, effectively an interactive UI for SQL tables, but much easy to create and modify. But the consensus seems to be that such a thing dies at the hands of "worse is better".
Now we live in a world where free-form Excel spreadsheets *can* have some structure imposed on them, but that rarely do, instead of one where structure is the default, but with free-form sheets available.
I guess it is the dynamic vs static typing argument all over again, but playing out on a field where people don't necessarily see themselves as programmers.
@ekuber did you ever see that talk about how Excel is capital F Functional Programming? It was pretty good.
@ekuber Are you basing this on the fact that Excel with LAMBDA is Turing-complete? Or would you say Excel enabled programming before LAMBDA was added?
"With the addition of custom functions that can call each other and recursively call themselves, Excel’s formula language becomes Turing-complete, effectively meaning that Excel users can compute anything without resorting to another programming language."
https://www.infoq.com/articles/excel-lambda-turing-complete/
@ekuber it's a bit like Microsoft Word vs LaTeX.
Wysiwyg hacks vs structured document.
Yes you can structure your Word document and use stylesheets. But you don't have to either.
(applies to LibreOffice an most other consumer grade word processors)
@ekuber I was such a fan and even got the Windows 95 version + update and ran it in a VM for years. Unfortunately it failed. I suspect it's because people aren't structural creators, but more like structural discovers. Just like many languages (hello C) are scrambling to Rust's owership "feature", but aren't going full bore and thus looses much of the benefit, then same way all other spreadsheets adopted ideas from Improv (and called the "pivot tables").
OT: I seem to recall a product that \