On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Chad Perrin <code / apotheon.net> wrote:
>
> This is true, of course -- but there is still an influence there where
> research publications will surely be expected to serve some end Microsoft
> executive policy finds worth of approval.     > Research consistently failed to serve Microsoft's bottom line in some
> way, it would be shut down.

There's more to the bottom line than, well, the bottom line. That can
be, for example, public relations, or staying on the cutting edge of a
market. I doubt that something like Microsoft Surface will ever be
produced. OTOH, MS research created .NET, PhotoSynth, and Kinect.

But that doesn't matter: The paper linked in this thread credits two
researcher from non-MS institutions.

> You're not making the same claim here that was originally made.

That could be because I'm not making the same the claim. OTOH, your
statement was drifting too much into the opposite direction (i.e.
spreadsheets being useless without a proper programmer, to exaggerate
a bit).

> Sure.       
> Reorienting the pro-Excel argument so that it agrees with things others
> (including me) have already said does not make the preceding pro-Excel
> arguments any less wrong.

Considering that I am making the same argument I always have in this
threat (that Excel isn't the best choice of tool, and is highly
specialized), that isn't all that surprising. ;)

I'm not, nor have I ever been, a member of the Commu^W^W^W^Wproponent
of Excel as a language VM.

-- 
Phillip Gawlowski

Though the folk I have met,
(Ah, how soon!) they forget
When I've moved on to some other place,
There may be one or two,
When I've played and passed through,
Who'll remember my song or my face.