Thread: why>?

unprovable?

it's unprovable to me that you're worth a single friggin dime kid

grow some balls and learn a real program


Harlan Grove wrote:
> aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote...
> >and for the record?
> ...
>
> All unprovable. More vapor.

aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote...
>unprovable?
....

Yes. You claim to know a lot, but you seldom if ever respond with
detailed solutions. If you actually do know anything, since you seem to
spend a good chunk of times posting to newsgroups, why not answer some
questions as a diversion from ranting? To be fair, in dbms ngs you
provide some details in about 10% of your postings. The other 90% fall
into the 'you MDB baby' variety.

Increase your signal to noise ratio, and people may take you seriously.
As it is, you're just the loud, belligerent neighborhood drunk.

aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote...
>a good chunk of time?
>
>maybe 20 minutes a week?

If only. Look at the number of posts you make in different newsgroups.

Then again, given what's in your post, a random ranting script could
generate most of what 'you' write.

>i give plenty of help

All anyone needs to do is read what you've posted in various
newsgroups. Far more ranting than help. You may claim the ranting is
help, but the drunk who lives by the dumpster at the supermarket would
claim his ranting about aliens is also help.

>WE WILL AUTOMATE YOU OUT OF A JOB.
>WE -- RDBMS Engineers-- Have been doing it already for 10 years.

I'm safe. You couldn't understand my job. Nothing is as inept as a
programmer with no clue about real business.

Harlan,

"You da man!!!" You are absolutely right about Aaron and his claims to fame. I loved his shtick about having his car towed. Let's see..... he's been fired by Microsoft, had his car towed and has a vocabulary of cuss words about a mile long. Wonder who'd hire him after reading his postings and after hearing his BS claims of how much he's done that have yet to be proven??

I'm willing to bet he's an unemployed, lives in a cave mentality hermit who has nothing better to do than to rant, "Oh yeah???? My dad's better than yours."...... "Oh yeah???? Just wait till I tell my bigger brother!"

But I can tell you're getting to him, Harlan! Keep up the good work.

I saw in another forum that Aaron wrote, "MDB is just for babies ...."; He told us more about himself with that little comment than quite a few other postings have said.

aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote:
> I just know first-hand that there is a better way
>

Hmmm, that phrase sounds familiar....

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''
FRANK: Many Christmases ago, I went to buy a doll for my son. I reach
for the last one they had - but so did another man. As I rained blows
upon him, I realized

there had to be a better way!

KRAMER: What happened to the doll?

FRANK: It was destroyed. But out of that, a new holiday was born. "A
Festivus for the rest of us!"

KRAMER: That musta been some kind of doll.

FRANK: She was.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''

Is your anti-Excel crusade related in any way to Festivus? Do you have
an Access pole? SQL Feats of Strength? Do you find VBA (tinsel)
distracting?

And, assuming for the moment there were an LTRIM
function, what would happen if there were already a mix of TRIM and
LTRIM function calls in these formulas? You'd replace the LTRIM calls
with LLTRIM. You need finer control over text replacement when dealing
with formulas. Once again your inexperience/lack of understanding leads

to errors any moderately competent spreadsheet user would avoid.


Harlan

you are missing the point.

what choices do you have to update formulas?? find and replace?
what if you need a subquery in order to find out what the formula
should be?


TSQL is just flat out more powerful.

with databases; you dont need to have duplicate copies of the whole
data in order to sort in 2 different directions

i can right-click anything in the db world and go 'sort' or 'sort
descending'

i can filter, filter excluding-- in anything that I do.

I have interactivity.

you have static lame numbers.

i just have more power; more functionality than you do


Harlan Grove wrote:
> aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote...
> ...
> >MICROSOFT WILL MILK THE **** OUT OF YOU EXCEL DORKS; AND YOU STILL
> >WONT HAVE THE POWER AND SIMPLICITY THAT YOU NEED TO GET YOUR JOB
> >DONE.
>
> We may not have the software to do YOUR job, but since you have no clue
> what anyone else's job involves, you have no clue what software anyone
> else should be using. That's why you're left always having to assume
> everyone else does the same thing you do.
>
> >If Ms made a version of excel that LOOKED just like Excel; but it
> >stored everything in SQL Server-- maybe that would be something that is
> >worthwhile.
> >
> >Store the values and the formulas in SQL Server.. so if i need to
> >update a whole sihtload of 10,000 functions; i can just use a simple
> >
> >UPDATE XLS_FORMULAS
> >SET FormulaText = replace(formulatext, 'TRIM', 'LTRIM')
> >WHERE Worksheet = ''sheet1' and row = 'A'
>
> Kinda missing the entire point of spreadsheets, aren't you? First,
> while there's a TRIM function, there's no LTRIM function in Excel, only
> in VBA. So your wonderful batch replace operation would result in a lot
> of error values. And, assuming for the moment there were an LTRIM
> function, what would happen if there were already a mix of TRIM and
> LTRIM function calls in these formulas? You'd replace the LTRIM calls
> with LLTRIM. You need finer control over text replacement when dealing
> with formulas. Once again your inexperience/lack of understanding leads
> to errors any moderately competent spreadsheet user would avoid.
>
> Second, columns are identified with numbers, not rows.
>
> Third, you'd need to limit this to specific workbooks wouldn't you? Or
> can your wee brain only imagine that all workbooks would have the same
> formulas in the same places?
>
> >I mean seriously; if Excel had more functionality-- to be able to
> >update this sort of crap--- without using a dangerous Excel macro--
> >then maybe i would be happy with excel.
>
> The danger of data corruption is no different using Excel macros or, if
> they were possible, SQL-like Update queries. As your screwed-up code
> above demonstrates, SQL-like Update queries can mung formulas quickly.
>
> Besides, in order to gain the finer-grained control over tokenized
> replacements in formulas, you'd need to use VBA or some other
> programming language to implement regular expression search and replace
> so that it would be possible to replace TRIM but not LTRIM (or more
> realistically, NPV but not XNPV) calls.
>
> Finally, VBA is only a clear & present danger in the hands of
> incompetents like you. There are ways to protect against macro viruses
> ways to avoid needing to use macros in workbooks in production and used
> by others while still using macros during development.
>
> >if i could source an excel workbook with data from a sproc.. and i
> >could take input parameters--- then maybe I would stop bitching and
> >moaning.
> ...
>
> You can already if you knew how to use ADO, VBA and Excel's object
> model. The problem is that you only know how to write SQL queries, so
> for you everything must be a SQL query because that's all you know.
>
> >And Excel STILL isn't a multi-user application.
>
> Wrong. Spreadsheets as glorified calculators are multi-user in the same
> sense that multiple users can access Google web search at the same
> time. That is, when users don't need to share what they're working on.
> When they do need to share, there are shared workbooks. There are some
> restrictions imposed in shared workbooks that don't apply to isolated
> user workbooks, but they're not onerous if the spreadsheet is designed
> to do what spreadsheets are supposed to do - lots of calculations
> involving relatively little data. If you mean Excel does a poor job as
> a multiple user database, granted, but that's not what Excel or any
> other spreadsheet were designed to do well.
>
> >If we could leverage Excel reports inside of SQL Server Reporting
> >Services; then maybe Excel woudln't be so friggin worthless.
> ...
>
> Using Excel to generate reports is problematic. It's not the ideal
> tool. However, since you only seem to understand reports, you naturally
> focus on this.
>
> >so instead of 'do you want to open this read-only and make YET ANOTHER
> >COPY OF THE SAME DAMN REPORT'
> ...
>
> If some spreadsheet is meant to generate reports, then users presumably
> aren't adding any data, just applying different filters or views (in
> the Excel sense). Such changes shouldn't be saved.
>
> >So I claim that the problem is that you excel dorks are
> >one-trick-ponies.
> ...
>
> If we all only used Excel, maybe. But many of us use Excel AND Access
> AND other dbms's AND other programmable software. You're the one stuck
> with a software monoculture and the easily outsourced/off-shored job
> domain.
>
> >if Oracle saw value in excel they would have a competitive product.
>
> They used to have SQL*Calc, which was pathetic as a spreadsheet. They
> figured out that it wouldn't sell any units of the RDBMS, and might
> even drive some customers away. They, unlike you, figured out how to
> spot their own mistakes.
>
> >that is why there is only one vendor for spreadsheets... because most
> >technology ocmpanies says 'who gives a **** about spreadsheets'
> ...
>
> Or because there's no point competing against a network monopoly (this
> is an economics term). Then again, weren't you ranting about Google
> Spreadsheet just last week? Where's Google DBMS?
>
> >So who gives a flying **** what 80% of my posts say.
>
> Even a ranter can state the bald truth at times. 'Course it'd be more
> accurate if you bumped up that percentage.
>
> >I am here to say what needs to be said.
> ...
>
> 'The Excel-using aliens are coming! They'll suck out your brains with
> nested IFs!'

aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote...
>I just know first-hand that there is a better way
....

For making reports, possibly. For generating pro forma financials given
different interest rate, demand and factor cost assumptions, no sane
person would use a DBMS. That still provides for you attempting to do
so.

>building reports in Excel should be grounds for termination.
>it isn't a real reporting tool.
....

And if generating reports were all that business Excel users did *AND*
they were given Access as well *AND* the were given training on how to
use Access, then maybe. However, if all they have is Excel, Word and
PowerPoint, better by far to use Excel.

>it wont ever be.

To the extent typewriters were reporting tools prior to the 1980s,
Excel is a reporting tool. There may be much better tools, but they'd
need to be provided to most users if you expect most users to use them.

>do people TELL you to use excel?

No. They know I can figure out what to use. They also know that since
I'm the only person in my unit (even the only one on this floor) who
has Access, it'd be pointless for me to build anything with Access for
use by others in my unit.

>Have you ever asked why?

If models ALREADY exist, that's what people use, and barring a
compelling improvement in efficiency, that's what other people
maintain. When those models work correctly (you may be unable to
validate spreadsheets, but that's just your own incompetence), there's
no pressing need to reinvent the wheel.

As for new models, I'm nonpartisan myself. I'll use batch files, WSH
scripts (VBS), other scripting languages that all users have installed
or access to via the network (Tcl and Kixtart where I work), and Excel,
but not Access because no one I work with on a daily basis has it on
their PCs.

>Is excel a 'standard'??
....

Since it's on several times as many PCs as Access, Excel is much more
of a standard than Access is. Since nearly all business PC users in the
Fortune 5000 have Excel, it's a de facto business standard. But I'll
grant it's not an ANSI or ISO standard. So how does 'standard' conform
to the myriad of SQL dialects out there? Is SQL Server compliant with
the latest ANSI SQL standard? Would you be defining 'standard' as
whatever SQL Server does/provides?

aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote...
....
>do i spend all day long copying and pasting?
....

No. Ranting.

aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote...
....
>you are missing the point.
>
>what choices do you have to update formulas?? find and replace?
>what if you need a subquery in order to find out what the formula
>should be?

Unlike you, I recognize the advantage of using VBA at least for
building and using development tools. I have a search & replace macro
that uses WSH regular expressions, which means I can tokenize formulas
OR text constants with no ambiguity to whatever detail I need. Using
regular expressions, I don't need 'subqueries', whatever they'd be in a
spreadsheet context.

You'd need to be familiar with either EMACS or vi to understand what I
mean.

>TSQL is just flat out more powerful.
....

For editing formulas?

>with databases; you dont need to have duplicate copies of the whole
>data in order to sort in 2 different directions

You don't *need* them in any language, even Excel, *IF* you know what
you're doing. But that excludes you.

>i can right-click anything in the db world and go 'sort' or 'sort
>descending'
....

Fine. And when would this be useful in spreadsheets not being misused
as databases?

...And the ranting troll STILL hasn't offered up any proof of its abilities!! Or, of its knowledge!! Sounds like my former wife... all talk and extremely short oon the walk.

C'mon, Aaron..... give us all heart attacks and demonstrate your marvelous self-professed abilities!

and for the record

you building things in Access and sending them to non-technical users?

it is free and then you don't even need to buy a copy of office for the
idiots in your office.

would you rather spend $300 for Excel and Word; or $400 for Excel Word
and Access?

or you could spend ZERO and have a better tool on every machine


Harlan Grove wrote:
> aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote...
> >I just know first-hand that there is a better way
> ...
>
> For making reports, possibly. For generating pro forma financials given
> different interest rate, demand and factor cost assumptions, no sane
> person would use a DBMS. That still provides for you attempting to do
> so.
>
> >building reports in Excel should be grounds for termination.
> >it isn't a real reporting tool.
> ...
>
> And if generating reports were all that business Excel users did *AND*
> they were given Access as well *AND* the were given training on how to
> use Access, then maybe. However, if all they have is Excel, Word and
> PowerPoint, better by far to use Excel.
>
> >it wont ever be.
>
> To the extent typewriters were reporting tools prior to the 1980s,
> Excel is a reporting tool. There may be much better tools, but they'd
> need to be provided to most users if you expect most users to use them.
>
> >do people TELL you to use excel?
>
> No. They know I can figure out what to use. They also know that since
> I'm the only person in my unit (even the only one on this floor) who
> has Access, it'd be pointless for me to build anything with Access for
> use by others in my unit.
>
> >Have you ever asked why?
>
> If models ALREADY exist, that's what people use, and barring a
> compelling improvement in efficiency, that's what other people
> maintain. When those models work correctly (you may be unable to
> validate spreadsheets, but that's just your own incompetence), there's
> no pressing need to reinvent the wheel.
>
> As for new models, I'm nonpartisan myself. I'll use batch files, WSH
> scripts (VBS), other scripting languages that all users have installed
> or access to via the network (Tcl and Kixtart where I work), and Excel,
> but not Access because no one I work with on a daily basis has it on
> their PCs.
>
> >Is excel a 'standard'??
> ...
>
> Since it's on several times as many PCs as Access, Excel is much more
> of a standard than Access is. Since nearly all business PC users in the
> Fortune 5000 have Excel, it's a de facto business standard. But I'll
> grant it's not an ANSI or ISO standard. So how does 'standard' conform
> to the myriad of SQL dialects out there? Is SQL Server compliant with
> the latest ANSI SQL standard? Would you be defining 'standard' as
> whatever SQL Server does/provides?

aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote...
>and for the record
>
>you building things in Access and sending them to non-technical users?
>
>it is free and then you don't even need to buy a copy of office for the
>idiots in your office.
....

Yes, Access runtime could be installed on all users' PCs. But it's not,
generally. Also, most if not all business PC users in most larger
companies sign technology policies as part of their implicit employment
contract in which they agree to follow the company's IT guidelines, and
nearly all the time those guidelines explicitly forbid users to install
software on their own. So if users don't have Access proper or runtime,
what benefit would they derive from anything developed for Access?

You're going to have to make the case for the IT people to deploy at
least the Access runtime on all PCs, but it seems your approach to, er,
persuasion is as poorly received by IT people as by spreadsheet users.

If you walk like and idiot, talk like an idiot, write like an idiot and
act like an idiot, don't be surprised that most people will (continue
to) treat you like an idiot.

Harlan

you're missing the point.

your goddamn IT department is a waste of time.

All that they do is sit around and jerk off to DB2 and Oracle all day
long.

I've worked in companies with 50 employees and a dozen Oracle DBAs. I
understand the dynamics.

Maybe if you didn't have to have 20 people working on the mainframe;
maybe if your company was flexible

I just think that it's ridiculous

you're the most egocentric person i've ever met in my life.

I dont write like an idiot or talk like an idiot.

I am the kid on 'the Sixth Sense' is it-- he runs around and says 'i
see dead people'

I SEE IDIOTS EVERYWHERE I LOOK TYPING THE SAME DAMN THING INTO EXCEL
WEEK IN AND WEEK OUT

-Aaron


Harlan Grove wrote:
> aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote...
> >and for the record
> >
> >you building things in Access and sending them to non-technical users?
> >
> >it is free and then you don't even need to buy a copy of office for the
> >idiots in your office.
> ...
>
> Yes, Access runtime could be installed on all users' PCs. But it's not,
> generally. Also, most if not all business PC users in most larger
> companies sign technology policies as part of their implicit employment
> contract in which they agree to follow the company's IT guidelines, and
> nearly all the time those guidelines explicitly forbid users to install
> software on their own. So if users don't have Access proper or runtime,
> what benefit would they derive from anything developed for Access?
>
> You're going to have to make the case for the IT people to deploy at
> least the Access runtime on all PCs, but it seems your approach to, er,
> persuasion is as poorly received by IT people as by spreadsheet users.
>
> If you walk like and idiot, talk like an idiot, write like an idiot and
> act like an idiot, don't be surprised that most people will (continue
> to) treat you like an idiot.