It’s An Ill Wind

I was pontificating recently about the horror of tightly-coupled worksheet calculations and macro code in Excel and the mess that results from carelessly mashed-together programming paradigms.

By a horrible coincidence, a few smug weeks later I suddenly found myself deep in the horror again. This time, I had to contend with two versions, needing to set up and run several tens of thousands of real-world cases through “before” and “after” scenarios.

I soon started to turn up nuggets of wonderment. Here are a couple of gems from the worksheets:

=IF(CPPI=TRUE,TRUE,FALSE)
=MAX(1,DATE(YEAR(C4),MONTH(C4),DAY(C4))-DATE(YEAR(C6),MONTH(C6),DAY(C6)))

“Why”, I asked myself, “don’t these monkeys think?” (When someone asked me which monkeys I was referring to, I realised that my inner monologue was malfunctioning, but that’s not important right now.)

Obviously they were thinking, apart from anything else the whole thing does seem to work, inasmuch as a set of inputs produce a set of plausible-looking outputs. I’d assert, however, that an experienced, competent developer has a continuous, higher-order review process running, asking questions like “does that look right?”, “could that be written better?”, “is that clear?”, “could someone else understand that?” It would appear that the individuals concerned in this case had no such process running.

I have a little tool that I bring out when faced with an unknown Excel VBA application. It scans the code and delives a report that gives me an idea of the degree of caution I should exercise, calculating for each routine an “X” number, being some arcane function of code lines, mesting level, numbers of ifs, loops, one-character variables (seldom straightforward to rename, even if they’re called “q” or “z”). A score of 10 or above indicates a possible problem area. Over 50 and we’re definitely in bandit country. Here’s the report for the top-scoring routine in the horror workbook (names changed to conceal the guilty):

422 is by a factor of about 3 the highest-scoring routine I’ve ever encountered. (By contrast, and perhaps it’s an unfair comparison, the top score in xlunit is 24.) That 1044 lines of code doesn’t include comments, blank lines, variable declarations or similar. Even better, it’s declared Static, something so appallingly dangerous (to me, at least – I get nauseous when I see even a Static variable) that I had to change the analyser because it had never seen it before. “Option Explicit” is honoured more in the breach than the observance and there are a mere (ha!) 156 global variables.

I was flicking through my cherished (and slightly stained) copy of The Pragmatic Programmer last night and I’ll take as my text the section “What Make a Pragmatic Programmer?” on pages xiii and xix of the Preface. Summarising the characteristics and comparing them with the authors of the unholy mess described, I get:

Early adopter/fast adapter: given that the abomination I’m working with is the culmination of more than two years’ work and is the fourth or fifth (and probably “best”) version, FAIL.

Inquisitive: I see no sign of any curiosity, not even “why do we suck?” FAIL

Realistic: I’m (generously) prepared to specify that this one may not really apply here. (Big of me.)

Jack of all trades: and masters of none? These guys didn’t make it to Jack of one trade. FAIL.

Critical Thinker: referring to the inner monologue again, there’s no evidence to suggest that anything like the questions listed above were ever applied here. And plenty of evidence to the contrary. BIG RED FAIL.

The tragedy here is that the monkeys described are unlikely to realise exactly how snivellingly far from acceptable (let’s not waste “best” here) practice they are, as the Dunning-Kruger effect tells us is likely, so they’re not going to change in any useful way. Failing to see that the twin demons of high coupling and low (non-existent, if we’re honest) cohesion are rampaging through their code leaves me wondering where we’d start.

Depressingly, these guys aren’t unusual, they’re not even the worst. The type is perhaps a little more common in, say, the Excel world, where the tools to develop staggering incompetence are so widely available, but they’re everywhere else – the invisible 90% of the iceberg.

On the plus side, even moderately competent technicians who are prepared to don the elbow-length protective gloves and dive in to such messes will be able to look forward with some confidence to a lifetime in which there will be a paycheck for as long as they can stand to pick it up.

Advertisements

Buddy, Can You Paradigm?

(stackoverflow rep: 8998, Project Euler 89/273 complete

(or: “If Paradigm was half as nice”)

I started reading Coders At Work recently. In the style of a few predecessors, the book comprises transcribed (and presumably edited) interviews with fifteen programmers who have made significant contributions of various kinds. It’s a weighty tome, possibly a little overweight if I’m honest, but interesting nonetheless; it makes a change from the kind of technical tome I usually cart around on the daily commute.

Circling a little closer to, and nodding vaguely in the general direction of the point, interviewee number seven, reached just this morning, is Simon Peyton Jones, who was one of the progenitors of Haskell, one of, if not the first name that springs to mind when one hears “functional programming“. For the last decade, Jones has been a researcher at Microsoft Research in Cambridge, which suggests that he would have had at least one finger in the F# pie… There’s a DotNetRocks show number 310 features an interview with the man, by the way. I’m enviously disturbed that despite our very similar ages, he appears considerably less follicly-challenged than me, although there could be some comb-over action going on there.

In the taxonomy of programming paradigms (does that make sense?) we have Declarative and Imperative. They are opposites. In the Declarative fold, we get stuff like SQL, XSLT, all the functional languages and, I submit Excel worksheets. Actually it’s not just me: that Wikipedia link places spreadsheet cell-based programming within the Dataflow subcategory of Functional. Imperative programming, on the other hand, includes the panoply of more “traditional” languages, including good old Visual Basic and its slightly less functional sibling VBA.

Thinking about Excel and VBA developement, I’d say there are several fairly distinct uses for VBA code (usually, but not exclusively: we can write add-ins or perform automation in plenty of other ways) which include:

  • New worksheet functions;
  • Interface extensions (menus, toolbars, ribbons etc);
  • Helpers (or wizards);
  • Control and simulation

…of which I write a lot of the latter two.

(You know how some comedians talk about a string of seemingly unrelated things and then cleverly tie them all together at the end? Well, fingers crossed, stay tuned)

A while back, I was handed a workbook, developed by an external consultancy, that modelled the 20-year evolution of a financial product. We wanted to run it across a significant number of stochastic market data simulations to get a picture of the distribution of possible outcomes. About 30,000 such simulations (and about 16GB of simulated market data) would be sufficient, we thought. The workbook took about 20 minutes to perform one such calculation. We didn’t have a year.

Fortunately, there were any number of classic optimisation failures to rectify: massive VBA/worksheet interaction at the cell level (changed to use large arrays), screen update enabled at all times, lots of less painful VBA-specific stuff, Application.Calculation = xlCalculationAutomatic, you know the drill. Easy stuff. Within a day it was taking about a minute and I could look at having the whole analysis done in under a week (I have a four-CPU machine).

If it all seems straightforward, it wasn’t. I’d wrapped the workbook in a modified (hacked-up from xlUnit) test jacket to check that my changes weren’t affecting the results, pretty much a necessity for any refactoring work, and one change kept breaking. Every time I tried to switch off automatic calculation, triggering it only when I thought it was needed, the final results came out different. I finally realised that the VBA and worksheet were extremely highly-coupled – calculations were occurring as the code pushed values through: change a value, auto-calc, change another value, auto-calc again and so on. Eek. It took almost a week to unravel. Of course, since I actually enjoy doing this kind of work for the most part, it wasn’t a complete disaster, but I could have lived without the time pressure…

As a finance worker (perversely, I’m increasingly inclined to describe myself as a Banker1 these days) I have cause, from time to time, to access The Bloomberg from Excel. At least one of the functions in the (extensive and powerful, let’s be fair) API is a real functional-imperative mess. Here’s one with which I’m not at all happy:

=BDH("MXWO", "PX_LAST", "01/06/2007", "28/12/2009", "Dir=V", "Dts=S", "Sort=A", "Quote=C", "QtTyp=Y", "Days=T", "Per=cd", "DtFmt=D", "cols=2;rows=672", "FX=EUR")

Yes, there are a lot of arguments2, but most are at least not positional, which shows they’re trying. This particular example asks for the last daily quote of the MSCI World Index, in Euro, between the dates given. Even better, I guess, there’s a wizard to generate it all for you. But here’s the nasty bit: the call fills as many rows – without warning about overwrites – as it needs. Oh, and that "cols=2;rows=672" parameter? It’s rewritten if you make any change that would affect the number of cells output. This is not easy to accomplish. Try duplicating the effect in VBA, go on, I double-dare you. I think there’s a separate server process at work here, able to make asynchronous (but timely) modifications to user worksheets.

Yikes. And ugh.

To me, there’s something broken here. They’re using am apparently functional programming model but allowing the code to affect the state of the worksheet in (from the user’s perspective at least) a rather arbitrary (or at least, unpredictable) way. We’re not even getting an array formula here – the function just causes chunks of worksheet to be filled with data. In point of fact, there looks to have been some serious programming work here – I don’t think in the normal course of events that calling a function is allowed to cause areas outside the calling range to be modified. I rather suspect an external process is being asked to pump values into the sheet through some devious means like (but let’s hope it isn’t) DDE.

(This is where I try to pull it all together. A little encouragement wouldn’t go amiss here…)

The fact that we have both paradigms represented as first-class components of a single development platform may be a large part of the reason for Excel’s dominance in the marketplace. But the interface between declarative and imperative code needs to be carefully managed to avoid the kind of unnecessary side-effects that I spent so long untangling.

The messed-up simulation I whined about above failed to recognise that the worksheets should have been, in effect, a great big, super-complex function, which the code used by setting up the input conditions, firing off a Calculate and then reading the output values. Instead, it tried to implement a tightly-coupled declarative-imperative abomination, with unfortunate results.

Let’s try not to repeat that mistake, for the sake of the children.

I’ve been (and remain) grumpy – thank you and good night.

You've been a lovely audience


1 Wanna make something of it?

2 Many Reuters functions do something similar, but push all the key-value pairs into a long string.

The Glove Puppet Programmer

While I prevaricate over the four (!) drafts sitting at various stages of incompletion in my “Posts” view, I’ll take lunchtime out to reminisce about a non-contemporaneous* colleague and his unique status as probably the most expensive programmer I’ve ever had to deal with.

This particular individual, who was either French or French Canadian, had the singular identifying characteristic of a name that was a literal translation of a stuffed children’s TV character from my childhood. This in itself should have been a warning.basil_brush He had created the Credit Risk reporting system that a team of ten expensive contractors, myself including, were labouring feverishly to replace. On his own. As a series of Excel spreadsheets. With extensive VBA macros, coming from no discernible programming background. If you’re wincing, I’m not surprised.

Why am I asserting he was peerless in the cost stakes? Because the application he’d built actually worked. Badly, slowly, requiring regular manual intervention, occasionally obviously inaccurate and more frequently rather less so, but it worked. And we were trying to reverse-engineer it**, distinguish between the right and wrong parts and deliver something that was everything the old “system” was not. Well, almost: we did need our system to work.

This is one of the gems I discovered in the VBA:

    br_OutputWB.Worksheets(bv_sOutPutWSName).Range("A1").offset(br_lCount + 1, 0).value = bv_sSTRATEGY
    br_OutputWB.Worksheets(bv_sOutPutWSName).Range("A1").offset(br_lCount + 1, 1).value = bv_sTRADENAME
    br_OutputWB.Worksheets(bv_sOutPutWSName).Range("A1").offset(br_lCount + 1, 2).value = bv_sTRADESTATUS
    br_OutputWB.Worksheets(bv_sOutPutWSName).Range("A1").offset(br_lCount + 1, 3).value = bv_sStructType
    br_OutputWB.Worksheets(bv_sOutPutWSName).Range("A1").offset(br_lCount + 1, 4).value = bv_sSTRUCTMODEL
    br_OutputWB.Worksheets(bv_sOutPutWSName).Range("A1").offset(br_lCount + 1, 5).value = bv_sTRANCHENAME
    br_OutputWB.Worksheets(bv_sOutPutWSName).Range("A1").offset(br_lCount + 1, 6).value = bv_iTRANCHENUMBER
    br_OutputWB.Worksheets(bv_sOutPutWSName).Range("A1").offset(br_lCount + 1, 7).value = bv_lTRANCHENOTIONAL

    ... are you getting the picture? We continue incrementing the offset for a while, until:

    br_OutputWB.Worksheets(bv_sOutPutWSName).Range("A1").offset(br_lCount + 1, 29).value = bv_sCOMMENTDEFAULT
    br_OutputWB.Worksheets(bv_sOutPutWSName).Range("A1").offset(br_lCount + 1, 30).value = bv_sNEWTRANSID
    br_OutputWB.Worksheets(bv_sOutPutWSName).Range("A1").offset(br_lCount + 1, 31).value = bv_sCOMMENT

In case you were wondering, the “bv_” prefix signifies “By Value.” And yes, that does mean that each of those values appeared as parameter to the routine. I counted 32 in total. That’s thirty-two input parameters. You really should be wincing by now.

gogglesSeveral other routines also had the same (or 99% the same) code blocks. Our friend the cut-and-paste programmer must have really earned his money that day…

Oh yes, you should see an example of how our chum called his parameter-heavy subroutines. Consider acquiring welding goggles before looking at this, by the way.

Call SS_BuildMTMByTrade(br_OutputWB:=OutputWB, br_lCount:=lMMcount_SS, bv_dbFXrate:=GetFXRate(vMM_FXRates, RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("TRANCHECCY").Column - 1).value), _
bv_sSourceFile:=m_sSS_MM_Source & IIf(bv_sTradeNamePrefix <> "", bv_sTradeNamePrefix & RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("TRADENAME").Column - 1).value, RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("TRADENAME").Column - 1).value) & "_" & "MM" & "_" & RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("MM_CSB").Column - 1).value & "_" & RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("MM_R").Column - 1).value & "_" & IIf(RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("MM_PW").Column - 1).value, "T", "F") & "_" & IIf(RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("MM_SCS").Column - 1).value, "T", "F") & "_" & Format(m_dSS_MM_Asof, "yyyymmdd") & ".xls", bv_dbParticipationFactor:=RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("DEALNOTIONAL").Column - 1).value / RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("TRANCHENOTIONAL").Column - 1).value, bv_iShift:=RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("MM_R").Column - 1).value, bv_bIgnoreFirstCprty:=CBool(RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("IGNORECPTY").Column - 1).value), _
bv_dbSpread:=RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("DEALSPREADBP").Column - 1).value, _
bv_bUsePVFormula:=RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("USEPVFORMULA").Column - 1).value, _
bv_sSTRATEGY:=RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("STRATEGY").Column - 1).value, _
bv_sTRADENAME:=IIf(bv_sTradeNamePrefix <> "", bv_sTradeNamePrefix & RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("TRADENAME").Column - 1).value, RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("TRADENAME").Column - 1).value), _
bv_sTRADESTATUS:=RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("TRADESTATUS").Column - 1).value, _
bv_sStructType:=RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("STRUCTTYPE").Column - 1).value, bv_sSTRUCTMODEL:=RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("STRUCTMODEL").Column - 1).value, _
bv_sTRANCHENAME:=RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("TRANCHENAME").Column - 1).value, bv_iTRANCHENUMBER:=RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("TRANCHENUMBER").Column - 1).value, bv_lTRANCHENOTIONAL:=RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("TRANCHENOTIONAL").Column - 1).value, bv_sTRANCHESUBORDINATION:=RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("TRANCHESUBORDINATION").Column - 1).value, bv_sTRANCHECCY:=RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("TRANCHECCY").Column - 1).value, bv_dtTRANCHEMATURITY:=RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("TRANCHEMATURITY").Column - 1).value, _
bv_sBUYSELL:=RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("BUYSELL").Column - 1).value, _
bv_lDEALNOTIONAL:=RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("DEALNOTIONAL").Column - 1).value, _
bv_iDEALSPREADBP:=RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("DEALSPREADBP").Column - 1).value, _
bv_sUPFRONTFEE:=RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("UPFRONTFEE").Column - 1).value, _
bv_sCOUNTERPARTY:=RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("COUNTERPARTY").Column - 1).value, _
bv_dtTRADEDATE:=RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("TRADEDATE").Column - 1).value, _
bv_dtSETTLMTDATE:=RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("SETTLMTDATE").Column - 1).value, _
bv_sREPACKVEHICLE:=RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("REPACKVEHICLE").Column - 1).value, _
bv_sCOMMENT:=RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("COMMENT").Column - 1).value, _
bv_lADRNOTIONAL:=RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("ADRN").Column - 1).value, _
bv_sCOMMENTDEFAULT:=RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("COMMENTDEFAULT").Column - 1).value, _
bv_sNEWTRANSID:=RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("NEWTRANSID").Column - 1).value, _
bv_sOutPutWSName:=MMTEMPSHEETNAME, _
bv_BookName:=RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("BOOKNAME").Column - 1).value, bv_UniqueID:=RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("UNIQUEID").Column - 1).value, bv_KMVCorr:=RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("KMVCORR").Column - 1).value, bv_MarketCorr:=RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("MARKETCORR").Column - 1).value, bv_RunFlag:=RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("RUNLISTFLAG").Column - 1).value, bv_DataSource:=RgCursor.offset(lOffset, Range("SOURCETYPE").Column - 1).value)

The second line is about 900 characters long. Nine. Hundred. If you’re starting to want to make it go away, perhaps by clawing out your eyeballs, I don’t blame you.

Finally, for dessert, if you will, or maybe like one of those hot steamy towels presented at the end of some Indian meals, here’s our friend’s take on copying an array:

Public Sub CopyArray(ByVal bv_FromArray As Variant, ByRef br_ToArray() As Variant)
    Dim l As Long
    Dim i As Integer

    For l = LBound(bv_FromArray, 2) To UBound(bv_FromArray, 2)
        ReDim Preserve br_ToArray(1, l)
        For i = LBound(bv_FromArray, 1) To UBound(bv_FromArray, 1)
        Debug.Print bv_FromArray(i, l)

            br_ToArray(i, l) = bv_FromArray(i, l)
        Next
    Next

End Sub

From the blank line following the “Debug.Print” line I surmise that some operation may, in the distant past, have been occurring that made the routine more than a criminal waste of electricity. I hope the use of lower-case “L” is a soothing balm to your eyes, as is the continuous “ReDim Preserve” of the outer loop…

I don’t know the final cost of the project that replaced this, I elected not to renew my contract after nine months. I’d guess it didn’t exceed $10 million, not counting the possible losses incurred from trading on inaccurate information in the several years the “system” was live.

I’d call that dangerous.


*we worked at the same place but not at the same time, if that makes any sense

** specs? Don’t be ridiculous.

Version control for Excel workbooks, Part 2

(stackoverflow rep: 4824, Project Euler 72/241 complete)

Not a month ago (about seven , actually) I started to gibber about source code version control and Excel. Then Stuff got In The Way and I was derailed. Well, Ruby-on-Railed, really – I’ve been almost totally immersed in intranet development and related matters and mostly having lots of fun.

exportThen along came Internal Audit (shudder). Some degree of consternation appeared to exist about the potential (albeit slight) vulnerability of our Source Control solutions (SourceSafe for Visual Studio and Excel stuff, subversion for the webby bits). Combined with the newly-available – and rather sexy – new enterprise SourceForge that had materialised, we bit the bullet and set out to put everything into the Company-Approved Solution. Which dragged me seven months into the past to ask again – how does one diff an XLS?

That’s not a rhetorical question, I do have a sort of answer. I’m thinking along the following lines:

  • Some VBA component-extraction code in an add-in
  • Perform the export on a Save or Close
  • Save VBA references as a separate text file

I’m not going to get into dumping worksheet content, although there are arguments for doing so.

Excel exposes the handy WorkbookBeforeClose and WorkbookBeforeSave events on the Application object. We’ll need an Application object and it’ll have to be declared WithEvents, so we need a class. I’m going to call it WorkbookDecomposer:

Option Explicit

Public wkbk As Workbook
Public WithEvents xlapp As Application

Private Sub xlapp_WorkbookBeforeSave(ByVal Wb As Workbook, ByVal SaveAsUI As Boolean, Cancel As Boolean)
    Set wkbk = Wb
    Decompose
End Sub

(We’ll have the same code for the Close event). Each component can be exported, and the references can be dealt with something like this:

Public Sub ExportReferences()

Dim ref As Reference

    With New FileSystemObject
        With .OpenTextFile(.BuildPath(wkbk.path, wkbk.Name & ".references"), ForWriting, True)
            For Each ref In wkbk.VBProject.References
                .WriteLine RefToString(ref)
            Next
        End With
    End With

End Sub

To start the thing, we can have a module with a little Sub such as:

Option Explicit
Option Private Module

Public decomposer As WorkbookDecomposer

Public Sub StartDecomposer()
        Set decomposer = New WorkbookDecomposer
        Set decomposer.xlapp = Application
End Sub

Now, as long as we don’t lose state, running this code once will give us an object that will automatically export copies of our code for storing separately in our code control system. So we can diff. The decomposer can be extended to shell out useful source control instructions such as commit, perhaps automatically, perhaps not.

I don’t like that “as long as we don’t lose state” thing. When we’re coding in VBA we lose state all the time. The best I can come up with is to use an OnTime macro to keep trying to restart the decomposer object:

    If decomposer Is Nothing Then
        Set decomposer = New WorkbookDecomposer
        Set decomposer.xlapp = Application
        Debug.Print "Decomposer (re)started @ " & Now
    End If
    Application.OnTime Now + TimeSerial(0, 0, 10), "StartDecomposer"

It sort of works, but it’s potentially intrusive when we have incomplete/invalid code (hardly unlikely in the scenario under consideration) and the OnTime macro may fail to fire for many reasons.

What are the alternatives? Custom external scripts? An external process that monitors changes on XLS files and auto-exports?

What Would Proudhon Do?

(stackoverflow rep: 3958, Project Euler 66/236 complete)

Dick Kusleika wrote about some of his personal code construction methods in Daily Dose of Excel recently. Something that caught my eye was this:

I generally end up with a lot of Property statements that do nothing but read and write to a module-level variable.

Probably fairly familiar, goodness knows I’ve written enough of those, and I never used MZ-Tools to automate the process, either. So I was nodding away as I read, muttering “amen brother” and whatnot, when I had a vicious attack of the Whys.

Why do we write a Property Set/Let/Get just to set, let or get a member variable? What’s a Property for, anyway?

I think a Property should probably only be used to assign a value when some processing needs to occur other than simply setting the member variable. Code such as:

Private mName As String
Public Property Let Name(value As String)
    mName = value
End Property
Serendipitously, I just completed Project Euler problem 84...

Serendipitously, I just completed Project Euler problem 84...

…just doesn’t seem to be adding any value. Rename the member variable, make it Public and move on, secure in the knowledge that you just saved some keystrokes and reduced your carbon footprint (well, maybe) by some infinitesimal fraction of a gram. The world thanks you.

Now if you need to validate the input in some way, a Property Let may be the ideal place to do so. It may not, as well, but that’s not important right now.

What else? What if you need something to happen, other than validation, when you set a property? Here’s where I’d suggest that you’re doing something wrong: I’m not a big fan of hidden side-effects (British understatement warning) – I have too many scars from self-inflicted wounds from doing that. If setting a property causes some activity or state-change, then the code should probably be refactored into a Sub with a suitably informative name.

I suppose write-only properties need a Let/Set (so that we can ensure no Get is written) but how often do we need that?

Otherwise, let’s just access the member variable directly without the indirection (think of the planet).

Getting.

Honestly, how different is a Property Get from a Function?

Given a class defined thus:


Public ws As Worksheet

Public Property Get Wksh() As Worksheet
    Set Wksh = ws
End Property

Public Function WkshF() As Worksheet
    Set Wksh = ws
End Function

… what are the differences between the three Sets here:


Public Sub GetWksh()
Dim wsh As Worksheet
    With New Class1
        Set wsh = .ws
        Set wsh = .Wksh
        Set wsh = .WkshF
    End With
End Sub

I submit, Your Honours, that the only time a Property Get makes much sense over a Function is when there’s no pre- or (ugh) post-processing around the accessing of the member variable. In which case, why bother?

Anyway, Proudhon wouldn’t have liked Properties.

Whither (Wither?) VBA?

Considering the origins of the various Office components (and a light bulb may be flickering dimly in the minds of those who can remember back that far) we’ve come a long way in the application automation stakes. Can you remember Access Basic ? WordBasic? Excel macros pre-VBA? Did early versions of Outlook have macros?

Office application macro capabilities have come a long way but they’ve been pretty much stuck at the last version of the VB6 runtime. That’s about a decade with no significant change. In that time Microsoft have hammered their way up to version 3.5 of .NET, but with only half-arsed (my opinion) gestures made towards improving/extending/renewing the internal automation aspects of Office.

I say “half-arsed”, which, I dunno, might be a little harsh, but the whole VSTO thing just seems like a thin wrapper on COM Interop, which is itself a wrapper to permit communication between shiny new .NET code and skanky old legacy stuff. Why do I need to use VSTO at all? If I need complex, compiled high-performance extensions then I’m probably better off getting one of my C++ literate colleagues to write a “proper” XLL add-in that won’t have to deal with COM at all. If I don’t need high-performance then any scripting language that can talk to COM will do the job. Heck, I can use Ruby (and do) – David Mullett has a whole blog on the topic of Windows automation with Ruby.

Microsoft want to get away from VBA, I think that’s clear. They’re never, never, never going to get the current host of non-technical VBA users to switch to VSTO. Forget it, it’s not going to happen. Hell, I don’t want to have to use VSTO and I’m one who should benefit from raising the cost of entry to macro programming. Do MS want to get away from COM? Maybe. They wanted to get away from DDE too, but it’s still lurking somewhere not too deep inside Windows.

How to make an old programmer slightly less grumpy

How to make an old programmer slightly less grumpy

But here we have the Dynamic Language Runtime, which sits on top of the .NET CLR and allows fun things such as IronPython, IronRuby and others. Snappy performance, ability to use .NET libraries, interoperability between languages, sounds like fun. According to Wikipedia, the plan is to move VB to run on it. Now there’s a thought: why shouldn’t Excel be rebuilt in sexy modern managed code, with VBA ported to the DLR and the old COM interfaces reduced to a shim to keep backwards compatibility? Then we’d have macro programming where it should be, in the application, with the billions of lines of legacy code still runnable, and I’d be able to hit Alt-F11 and work in Ruby.

Seems like a win-win scenario to me.