Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #406115
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Subject | Re: spreadsheet ergonomics |
| Date | 2017-04-05 02:05 +0000 |
| Organization | O.W.L. |
| Message-ID | <javz903.abu@rooftop.invalid> (permalink) |
| References | (7 earlier) <D5095C2F.9CC35%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <ahbiz003.buyr@rooftop.invalid> <D50990E0.9CC8F%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <avx89zb.f8c9a@rooftop.invalid> <D509993E.9CC9D%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 4/4/17, 6:14 PM, in article avx89zb.f8c9a@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/4/17, 3:38 PM, in article ahbiz003.buyr@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>>>> Here's a creation process for you:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://vid.me/pG0C
>>>>>>
>>>>>> zero to 52000 tables in 2.57 seconds. Each with locked labels
>>>>>> and formulas. Instantaneous jump to any table.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you will not show the type work we have been doing with multiple tables
>>>>> all showing and being interrelated and updating automatically?
>>>>
>>>> I've already shown that.
>>>
>>> Great... then point to the video where you created it by scratch (not
>>> running a script where you have preset a single task).
>>
>> I have asked you repeatedly why it is that you want a video of me
>> typing in vim. Still no answer.
>
> I have repeatedly answered.
>
> And it is now clear you will NEVER show something similar to this, but using
> your tools:
>
> <https://youtu.be/YfvQb8cxTBg>
>
> Creating, from scratch and zero preparation (other than to have a program
> open and I can show that if you want!), multiple tables (some on the same
> sheet and others not) and where the cells of any one table can reference the
> cells of another... and just for fun an added chart. Whole thing (again,
> with no preparation or pre-set scripting or anything else prepared for the
> task) is about a minute.
>
> Not shown, I admit, I shared it so you or anyone else could work with that
> spreadsheet (though I could have it also tied to specific users or
> passwords).
>
> Now, of course, the tables I show there are just for demo purposes -- it is
> not like that has any real-world value other then educational, so I also
> shared this:
>
> <https://youtu.be/VzVKlou6byU>
>
> More complex tables with combined cells and more complex formulas (though
> still no major number crunching or the like), and I show the value of having
> the multiple tables and color coding of formula references and more. I would
> NOT expect you to recreate something like that just to show in COLA... it
> would take more time than I would reasonably expect you to do.
>
> But with the first one, hey, it is a minute or two and -- BOOM -- done. Not
> like it is a big deal. Also, of course, you are under no obligation to do
> so, but given the time you have spent showing how you can have related
> tables and the like I think it is safe to say your tools simply do not allow
> for that type of work.
>
> And, again, nothing wrong with that. Heck, there are MANY spreadsheet tasks
> where Numbers SUCKS. So, again, not putting you or sc down in any way...
> just good to see what each does well.
>
> Hey, maybe you can show some of the spreadsheet tasks you think sc handles
> well... I am sure there are many you can think of where Numbers and even
> Excel would just suck at.
>
How long does it take in Numbers to create a sheet with 52000 tables
with locked formulas and labels (A-Z with 2000 tables in each column,
each table with a label{#} at the top, and a sum the bottom, summing 10
rows)? And how long does it take to navigate to a specific such table?
2.57 seconds here with sc.
>>> For that matter, did you ever even get a set of tables on a single sheet
>>> where you can update any table and have it flow through without flickering?
>>> If so would love to see how.
>>
>> You are aware that sc only presents one sheet at a time. It is necessary
>> to use multiple sheets to have floating tables.
>
> Yes... I know of that limitation of it.
>
>> This has been shown to you multiple times already, and, aside from the Mack
>> fluff, ever functional aspect has been addressed.
>
> What do you mean by "fluff" -- can you be specific?
>
Emphasis on style instead of substance.
>>>>>>>>> With YOUR suggestion, with an open source tool, we saw the hazard: an
>>>>>>>>> unknowing person could have lost data. Twice.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We saw you move the goalposts beyond the specifications.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, I merely noted I wanted an open file to be renamed
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And that specification was met.
>>>>>
>>>>> Very, very poorly, sure (as shown by the context I have returned... which
>>>>> you snipped). Really, you offered no REASONABLE solution.
>>>>
>>>> You don't get to change the specification after the fact.
>>>
>>> LOL! Yeah, no assuming you have enough common sense to figure out people do
>>> not want to lose data. Repeatedly.
>>
>> Where is the "common sense" in renaming an open file?
>
> Has already been discussed MANY times with me giving specific examples of
> when I have done so. Just off the top of my head:
>
> * Downloaded a video and opened it... then realized it is was in the place I
> store it nor with the name (or label) I prefer. No reason to close it just
> to rename and move it (and add a label)!
>
> * Opened files named "[Whatever] - New" and "[Whatever]" and, as I worked
> with them, realize I had related files with a different naming scheme... and
> saved in different folders. So renamed them to "[Whatever]" and "[Whatever]
> - OLD" and also moved them to their correct folders.
>
None of that represents "common sense."
> Why in situations such as that, as well as any other similar one, would you
> want to HAVE to close the file just to rename it or move it. That is a
> pretty big limitation!
"Save As..." And I believe I read something about people complaining about
not having a "Save As..." and so they put it back, along with a "Duplicate"
choice. The Apple crew is just a bunch of clods.
>
> But all of this is off the topic of your failure to have your solution take
> common sense into account.
>
>>> Seriously, if you are claiming that concept goes over your head then you
>>> must be the world's worst scripter.
>>
>> I have also shown you a solution that does not lose data in other open
>> files:
>>
>> https://vid.me/XLwZ
>
> Right... your solution for one program, not built in and never explained,
> and with the video with bizarre zooming (curious why you did that... does
> not really hurt it but just weird).
>
It may remain a mystery. I keep some magic to myself.
> But it shows your thinking in terms of one program
Once again you try to move the goal posts. Your specification was for doing it
LibreOffice.
> and not the system...
> while showing something I did not expect you to so, sure, well done. Curious
> why you never shared it... I suspect you had different instances of LO or
> other weaknesses.
Nope.
> If nothing else you cannot just drag and drop from your
> file browser.
>
My browser?
>>>> It is your responsibility to detail everything you expect from a solution.
>>>
>>> The assumption of basic common sense is included in everything I say.
>>
>> A written specification represents the totality of the requirments.
>
> So you do not assume and take into consideration common sense with your
> work. Fair enough. That is just one other way we look at things differently.
> For me common sense and thinking in terms of risks is important and just
> comes naturally. For you that is not the case.
>
You wrote the specification. It's your FAIL.
I can't help it if you are unable to put a coherent request to paper.
Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-03 00:14 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-02 17:33 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-03 01:46 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-02 19:24 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-03 04:53 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-03 10:20 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-03 19:40 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-03 14:17 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-03 21:24 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-03 14:32 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-04 02:15 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-03 19:24 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-04 02:39 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-03 20:35 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-04 04:15 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-03 21:31 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-04 05:01 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-04 08:51 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-04 13:56 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-04 21:12 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-04 14:53 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-04 22:42 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-04 18:08 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-05 01:49 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-04 18:57 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-05 02:15 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-04 19:46 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-04 20:51 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-05 04:03 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-05 21:30 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-05 15:02 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-03 10:53 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-03 19:38 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-03 13:01 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-03 20:54 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-03 14:16 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-04 02:30 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-03 20:26 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-04 04:45 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-04 09:29 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-04 20:49 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-04 14:20 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-04 22:38 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-04 18:05 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-05 01:14 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-04 18:41 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-05 02:05 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-04 19:27 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-05 03:59 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-04 21:32 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-05 05:23 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-05 08:30 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-05 20:39 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-05 15:01 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-06 00:08 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-05 18:23 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-06 01:46 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-05 18:54 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-06 02:01 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-05 19:08 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2017-04-06 05:51 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-06 14:39 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-04 20:30 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-05 04:14 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-04 21:33 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-05 05:08 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-05 08:23 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-05 21:06 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-05 14:57 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-05 22:05 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-05 15:25 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-05 22:52 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-05 16:15 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-06 00:12 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-05 18:14 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-06 01:34 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-05 18:48 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-06 01:54 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-05 19:03 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2017-04-05 11:55 -0400
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-05 09:03 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-05 21:17 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-05 15:15 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-06 01:49 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-05 18:55 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-06 02:00 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-05 19:04 -0700
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Silver-Tongued Heel <sl@im.er> - 2017-04-06 08:48 -0400
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2017-04-05 22:01 -0400
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2017-04-05 22:17 -0400
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-06 12:38 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2017-04-06 10:46 -0400
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-06 02:44 +0000
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2017-04-06 09:51 -0400
Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-06 14:26 +0000
csiph-web