Comment Re:Often Excel _is_ the right tool for the job. (Score 1) 86
Are the latest versions of Excel tracking to 42 decimal places and offering rounding accuracy that makes GPS timing look like a 19th Century pocket watch, or am I missing something as to how certain flavors (rhymes with sex sell) of inaccuracy are perfectly acceptable in business?
The problem here is geekmux, not Excel. I've never heard of somebody saying a spreadsheet does, or should, "track[] to 42 decimal places". I don't even know what you meant by "rounding accuracy that makes GPS timing look like a 19th Century pocket watch" -- I can tell you what kinds of errors exist for different GNSS satellite and receiver clocks, but rounding errors are dwarfed by others.
If you have some technical complaint, be specific about it rather than trying to be cute, because you run a risk of making yourself look stupid rather than clever. There are some well-known problems with Excel's default behavior, like how it aggressively treats text as dates -- but a lot of spreadsheet errors and loss of precision are purely user errors.
Just to clarify:
..as some spreadsheets involve 20 million cells..
Defending that stupidity is more a you problem. And if you want to know my “technical” complaint, somewhere behind a 20-million cell spreadsheet is someone actually trying to excuse broken default behavior in Excel under the guise of user error. When errors are not the fault of the user, what then is the always-acceptable excuse for the financial messiah?
Part of the acceptable inaccuracy I speak of is the absolute blind adulation for Excel in business. If that program was found to be broken severely and proven quite inaccurate in a future update, no business would ban the use of Excel. Not one. They all sit around waiting for a fix to their fix.
Blind adulation, is blind for obvious reasons. None of which are good.