Thanks Alexey, I plan to play around with pivot tables. Excel is such at efficient tool for developing simple user tools would love to expand what I can do with it. I can't really get a 'list of lists' to work in a flexible way in Excel. I do like the very fast interative development process with the user. 'declarative programming' is the ultimate solution when it works.
I have found .xlw a very useful library for Excel to C++/C# linking. http://xlw.sourceforge.net/ I found this article interesting, experience of a very tech savvy financial company that moved the entire company to functional programming. (in this case Excel/C# to OCAML) http://www.janestreetcapital.com/minsky_weeks-jfp_18.pdf On Jan 4, 4:36 am, Alexey <[email protected]> wrote: > Interesting. It seems many of the concepts have been fitted nicely > into traditional 2D spreadsheets via pivot tables and multiple > worksheets in a document. The separation of data, formulas, and views > is interesting. Not sure on my feelings on it just yet, but I > realized just now that I've been doing some of that in my own > spreadsheet app by way of programming special "logic cells" that > contain their own API and can expose different programmatic views of a > data range elsewhere in the document. I've used this pattern to > achieve non-trivial slicing and dicing of a data set. The spreadsheet > environment takes care of execution of different snippets of logic > that I write one piece at a time. > > I use my own software half as a normal spreadsheet and half as a > programming/persistence/testing environment. In my pursuit to solve > my own problems, I've lately been considering implementing pivot > tables and whether that would give me the desired multi-dimensional > nature of it or if a true dimensional expansion is necessary. > > On Jan 3, 2:50 pm, Rakesh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Lotus Improv....too much too soon. Maybe if they released it now? > > > On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Alexey Zinger <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Indeed. That's why I said "spreadsheet-like". As an author and heavy > > > user > > > of a Java spreadsheet app, I've been thinking about the next step for it > > > and > > > extra dimensions does seem appealing. > > > > Alexey > > > > ------------------------------ > > > *From:* ScottHK <[email protected]> > > > > *To:* The Java Posse <[email protected]> > > > *Sent:* Thu, December 30, 2010 9:16:26 PM > > > *Subject:* [The Java Posse] Re: programming theory: Quantum physics...to > > > Java....to Scala? > > > > yes, spreadsheets are great. I work 1000x faster in Excel than in > > > Java. > > > 'declarative' programming is the best solution when it works... > > > again the limitation with Excel is it can only handle a 1 or 2 > > > dimensional problem. work on a list of orders,etc... it can't handle > > > more than a list of data easily, relational data doesn't work. > > > > On Dec 31, 2:21 am, Alexey Zinger <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I predict in 30 years we'll be doing most of the programming in > > > spreadsheet-like > > > > visualizations of data structures. Yes, I love me some spreadsheets. > > > > > Alexey > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: ScottHK <[email protected]> > > > > To: The Java Posse <[email protected]> > > > > Sent: Thu, December 30, 2010 4:36:24 AM > > > > Subject: [The Java Posse] programming theory: Quantum physics...to > > > Java....to > > > > Scala? > > > > > Over the past 30 years we have been moving up from Assembly code...to > > > > Scala. > > > > > Do programmers need to understand quantum mechanics to program? I > > > > don't think so, programmers don't need to know assembly either. > > > > > In computer science history, each new language development helped us > > > > do more by forcing us to do less. In the lowest level, 'the heap', > > > > all data as Global and the only data type is 'byte'. So with assembly > > > > languages you can do anything.. Procedural languages such as C added > > > > simple data types and encouraged us to package state changes into > > > > functions. Object oriented languages encouraged us to limit the > > > > number of states by chunking data into objects. Ruby and Java helped > > > > object oriented programming by adding a lot of 'context' to the > > > > language and cutting back on boiler plate code vs C++. > > > > > Now 'functional programming' further encourages us to package chunks > > > > of states that go into and out of functions and reduce immutable > > > > state. > > > > > Is the long run, will we reduce all mutable state accessible by the > > > > programmer? I'm guessing in the future I think programmers will be > > > > moving abstract concepts around around in 3d and a Google App engine > > > > will turn it into gigabytes of assembly code. > > > > > What do people think is needed most right now for the next generation > > > > of languages? All my current programming problems involve dependent > > > > states...such as keeping track of the sum of a list of orders, and > > > > doing this with 3 or 4 levels of dependancy. Also working with > > > > vertical problems, getting a simple function result normally, but > > > > having some objects reach up much higher in the dependency stack when > > > > errors occur. Some of the really cool Scala features help out with > > > > these types of problems, list functions like .foldLeft and .foreach > > > > and take a layer of complexity out of some problems. I think us > > > > human programmers can only think efficiently in 2D and the more the > > > > languages takes out the multi-dimensional complexity out the more we > > > > can do. > > > > > -- > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > > Groups > > > "The > > > > Java Posse" group. > > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > [email protected]. > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > > "The Java Posse" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+ > > > [email protected]. > > > For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > > "The Java Posse" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > [email protected]<javaposse%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups > > > .com> > > > . > > > For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
