Is now the time to abandon the concept of relative referencing?

Craig Hatmaker 

Thank you for taking the time to read my reply and respond.

I do believe the introduction of dynamic arrays marked a turning point in the history of Excel - a major change in the calculation engine for the better. I can only speak for myself. Colleagues of mine that have used Excel since the 80s and 90 have not completely bought into Excel-based-on-arrays for lack of time to learn new skills, being content in one's current skill set, not being interested, etc. - whatever the reason may be. I still hear of columns being re-arranged to accommodate the limits of a base VLOOKUP, Advanced Filter being used instead of UNIQUE, helper columns used instead of LET, and plenty of other examples.  The awareness of functions like FILTER, XMATCH, LET, CHOOSECOLS, CHOOSEROWS, TAKE, DROP is close to 0.

Clients are usually very open to dynamic arrays.  Lambdas are usually received very well.  Though I still have to talk people off the VBA ledge.  There's a certain mindset that if someone doesn't know how to do it in the application that VBA must be the answer.  I think anyone beginning their studies of Excel in 2024 would be wise to find a course specifically geared towards Excel 365 and stay away from macros!

PeterBartholomew1 My two cents...

I'm more of the attitude that if the situation calls for it, use it. If not, just keep it simple. This is especially true when helping out beginners. If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that the "average" user falls into this category. Intermediate users would have a decent chance at adapting, but people who are still using =SUM(A2+A3) formulas are not very likely to grasp major concept changes. I still feel the "default" behavior should be the path of least resistance, so no one gets left behind.

On the topic of defining names, I say each to their own. For me, less is more (in general). I find spreadsheets that were created with excessive, unnecessary named ranges to be harder to modify, even if I was the one who built it. Too much time is wasted jumping back and forth between the worksheet formulas and Name Manager trying to reverse engineer everything. I would much rather see the cell references directly in the formula, so I know exactly what they're referring to. Having said that, there are plenty of situations where named ranges are essential, and the majority of my spreadsheets have at least a few.

Further to that, when it comes to defining names within the LET function, I'm all for defining each variable to improve readability, especially when first introducing others to LET. However, it's easy to get carried away here too. One thing I'll probably never get on board with is defining the LAMBDA function first for BYROW, BYCOL, MAP, REDUCE, SCAN, etc... it's like putting the cart before the horse, and actually reduces readability in my opinion, as you end up having to backtrack to figure out what's happening, rather than just reading each step in logical order.

I often find myself suggesting solutions on this forum that I would never use personally, simply because I would never setup my spreadsheets in a manner that calls for them. Rather than trying to explain the pitfalls of certain design choices, I just end up answering the question directly, even if it goes against my own preferred methods. The beauty of Excel is that there are many ways to get the job done. Some methods are easier to understand, while others can be more efficient. In many cases, though, it boils down to personal preference.

By the way, the custom TaxCalcλ function you shared in the TaxBands file is awesome. It's so simple and yet beyond the comprehension of any normal person (looks like Thunks was used?). You sir, are in a league of your own. 🙂