The only conclusion I can draw is that you didn't read my comment, because if you had you wouldn't try to counter my argument by circuitously agreeing with me. I am sure your friend was very productive with Access and Excel, and I'm sure they used advanced cryptographic protocols, solved tricky problems involving communications timing, handled cross-platform compatibility issues, programmed efficient inner rendering loops, etc.

I'm talking about "general purpose software," which encompasses a huge volume of space. Rare is the person who can competently address the wide variety of problems found in the world of software. Excel and Access, in my view, are perfect examples of paring down the acceptable problem space to something reasonable and making tools for people to solve those specific problems naturally. You can't write a 3d engine in excel, but that's okay, because the tool is not for that.

But this argument breaks down when you try to take it to a general-purpose software kit, which has to handle anything and everything. In this wide, unshielded world of hard problems you have to have the most capable and powerful tools available. Deliberately limiting tools in this environment is like saying, "Our river pilots have lots of experience handling barges, so it'd be counter productive to train them on oceangoing vessels, we'll just build bigger, sturdier barges for ocean travel." Yes, sailing on the open ocean requires more powerful and complex tools, but you appreciate those tools when the ocean gets rough.

> You can't write a 3d engine in excel

You can, a guy has done it. I'm only being pedantic because this is cool if you haven't seen it:

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3563/microsoft_excel_r...

That is really cool.

Heh... I know a guy who thinks he's too dumb to program in anything except Lisp (ALGOL syntax is hard! It's like math! :-)

I think you are talking about me

(Raises hand)