Category talk:Excel: Difference between revisions

From Rosetta Code
Content added Content deleted
No edit summary
mNo edit summary
Line 17: Line 17:
--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 06:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 06:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


A fully working computer has been implemented in Life. I don't have the URL to hand right now but I remember reading about it a few years ago. Needless to say it's a complex colony!
A fully working computer has been implemented in Life. The URL is http://rendell-attic.org/gol/utm/index.htm and needless to say it's a complex colony!
--[[User:Brnikat|Brnikat]] ([[User talk:Brnikat|talk]]) 10:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
--[[User:Brnikat|Brnikat]] ([[User talk:Brnikat|talk]]) 10:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:39, 12 July 2015

Personally, I think Excel is a bona fide programming language. When I worked for Microsoft Research a claim was made in a lab seminar, by a language theory researcher who shall remain nameless at present but is a leading in the Haskell community, that Excel was by far the most widely used purely functional programming language.

--Brnikat (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Good day!
Hmm... Excluding VBA from the topic, Excel's built-in functions/formulas can be considered a programming language. However, I think (just my opinion) Microsoft did not build/made Excel as a programming language/IDE (since it is a spreadsheet program).
If it is necessary, feel free to edit the category. Thanks! --Simple9371 (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I half remember reading about how researchers in Conways game of life had arranged generators of gliders to interact and were thinking that by arranging starting positions they might theoretically produce a turing machine. Despite that, I wouldn't call Conways game of life a programming language and neither would most people call Excel a programming language.
In extremis, an expert can make a point by saying that a spreadsheet could be thought of as a functional programming language, but even they might concede that there point is made because it is an extreme view probably shocking their audience out of their complacency.
--Paddy3118 (talk) 06:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is a site limitation that does not allow images to be uploaded. This might affect how graphical solutions to problems can be shown on Rosetta Code. I did this several years ago which is an oocalc entry.
--Paddy3118 (talk) 06:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

A fully working computer has been implemented in Life. The URL is http://rendell-attic.org/gol/utm/index.htm and needless to say it's a complex colony! --Brnikat (talk) 10:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)