> I think these are billion dollar mistakes only because they've allowed for trillions in improvements in the first place.
That's a hell of a claim to try and demonstrate when its initial advantage is far from obvious to begin with.
That's a hell of a claim to try and demonstrate when its initial advantage is far from obvious to begin with.
A) I have no clue where you got this from. It seems like a convenient assumption, but not one that's easily verified, especially when folks are introduced to the dangers of such an approach.
B) Giving people control over how the data is interpreted outside of the default interpretation seems like a no-brainer. I don't really rely on default interpretation of anything, especially in the context of spreadsheets given how eager they are to interpret data in unexpected ways, but based on this thread it seems like it's rather difficult to turn off the date conversion behavior in excel.
C) I was replying to a comment about implicit conversions, which is far larger than just the context of excel spreadsheets.
As a workflow, if every time you create a new spreadsheet you first define all the column types and constraints, you're in the world you're describing. Passing around that spreadsheet would also keep these settings as long as it's not converted and everyone's version is compatible.
That means you get the best of both worlds: people who care about strict types can be as strict as they want, other people can benefit from auto conversions.
Is this some kind of joke? Ever used Excel?