580 karma · joined January 11, 2009
Are there plans for that? It's probably possible to do most of that with this module system but you'd have to serialize the data structure into a string and "type X" wouldn't return your custom data structure type.
The whole setup comes in under $300: buy a certified refurbished Acer C720 from Acer with 4GB RAM and 16GB SSD (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00L87JC80) and, separately, a 128GB MyDigitalSSD (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00EZ2E8NO). Replace the SSD and install this custom-made Ubuntu distro that includes all of the fixes for the C720: https://www.distroshare.com/distros/get/12/. And that's it!
As a side note, I only really watch screencasts for stuff that I'm already very interested in. Watching a video means plugging in/finding headphones if I'm in the office and making a commitment of a couple of minutes.
The first, "Every single element in a relation (aka table) has to be exactly the same type" is true in many relational databases, but isn't necessary: SQLite, for example, is implemented with a nice form of dynamic typing where individual columns can take on multiple data types.
Second, "SQL isn't even Turing-complete" is sort of a folk theorem in computer science that isn't necessarily true anymore, especially with all of the proprietary SQL dialects in existence: the original standard, SQL92, is basically equivalent to relational algebra, which has the expressive power of first-order logic - it's so weak it can't even express concepts like graph reachability. But constructs like recursive queries have been added to the SQL standard since SQL92 which may make even standard SQL Turing Complete.
1. Ability to push/pull a range from a company-wide database, based on a (name,date) key. When you pull based on a (name,date) key, you get the first range with that name that was published on or before the date you specified. A dev team at the bank implemented this and people really loved it.
2. Versioning, but more for reasons of space than for having a "blame" feature. People use the same spreadsheet daily/weekly to create a report, so they have to save copies of the reports daily/weekly in case they need to reproduce the calculations from a particular report even though the differences from report to report were just minor tweaks. It wasn't uncommon for me to see spreadsheets that were > 100 MB, copied and saved daily.
3. Better explaining of formulas - you can ask Excel what cells reference another cell and it'll draw a bunch of arrows for you, but it still takes a lot of concentration to figure out why you're getting the number 4 in a cell when its references are many cells deep, spread across several worksheets. It would be nice if there was a clear way of explaining a cell's formula without having to navigate from worksheet to worksheet and actually hand-trace the references. Even collecting all of the references in one place and drawing out a tree of formulas would be an improvement.