Forum Discussion
LAMBDA: PrettyPrint
I love the term 'formula stew'. I have decomposed structured formulas manually on occasion, just to see what I get. It usually generates a mess but not always.
Simplicity, like beauty, is very much in the eye of the beholder. For many years now, I have settled on array formulas which, in turn, makes it easier to use defined names. In fact Mike Girvin commented
"As for your COUNTIFS, I have never, in almost 3 decades, seen a spreadsheet like yours with ALL the calculations entered as arrays!!! Now I see why your are so excited by the new Excel Calculation Engine."
Earlier, before I had fully-committed to the pain of CSE, I had exchanged models with F1F9 (financial modelling company prominent in promoting the FAST Standard). One of the sheets was returned with a 'simplified version', i.e. no array formulas, no names. The question then becomes:
In what way do you believe that replacing 4 names and 2 formulas, aggregating data over 100 cells, with a (direct referencing) system that introduces 17 billion names (only 100 of which point to occupied cells and 50 individual formulas, represents 'simplification?
I have been known to argue the case that 'complexity' is no more than 'simplicity' in excessive quantity. I would suggest that is only through the use of more abstract concepts that 'simplicity' is regained.
- tbouldenMar 10, 2021Iron ContributorI'm enjoying learning more about array formulas and dynamic arrays through my LET/LAMBDA experimentation; I may try an experiment like you say where all calcs are arrays, I know my coworkers would "love" it. I agree, 4 names and 2 formulas is much less worry if they are well-written, well-explained with comments or documentation, and well-protected so Joe Schmoe can't break it accidentally.