The Next Billion Programmers

11/02/2022 16:22 Gmail - The next billion programmers
Ricardo Walter Hildebrand <ricardo.walter@gmail.com>
The next billion programmers

Benn Stancil <benn@substack.com> Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 2:18 PM
Reply-To: Benn Stancil
<reply+sxu0h&4meq7&&69cd08c347e6d10ae60ab199d0c53de93dff0786e01c3745a950b85098a68ef2@mg1.substack.com>
To: mvm0a0hishnheagw@rwh.com.br
The next billion

programmers
The next product I’d build? Excel, for everything.
Feb 11
Where millennials learned Excel.
If you ask data folks what they think of Excel, there are two acceptable
answers. The first is rank contempt. It’s a bloated bundle of bad practices and
antipatterns, the disease that won’t go away, the interminable termites in the
foundation, the crumbling hooks on which our entire society hangs. The
second answer is that Excel is software’s greatest achievement. It’s the
ultimate Swiss Army knife; a perfectly designed cockroach; antifragile,
manifest.
There is no third answer. In some warped version of the midwit meme, savvy
observers live on the extremes, and only fools—”I like Excel, but I don’t think
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=5ac59e7e8f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1724488079852890201&simpl=msg-f%3A1724488… 1/7
there’s anything special about it”—occupy the seemingly reasonable middle

ground.
In my view, Excel is an unqualified triumph, for one very particular reason: It’s
given more than a billion people direct access to the profound power of
computers.
Of course, it’s hardly controversial to say that computers are powerful tools.
But to most people, myself included, that power is abstract and confusing. It’s
the incomprehensible reach of Google, finding 4.9 billion records in less than
a second. It’s the impossible precision of rocket science, blasting barn silos to
the edge of space, and landing them, upright, on a tiny target in the desert.
It’s the magic of hardware itself, which can somehow turn bits of metal and
silicon scattered across my house into words on my screen, and then words
on another screen in Thailand, milliseconds later.
In contrast, Excel shows us something much more relatable—the power of

automating simple arithmetic.
Consider a simple everyday application of Excel: Planning a party for the

Super Bowl big game. You might start by listing everyone who’s coming.
Excel counts how many people are on your list, so you can immediately
decide how many bags of chips to buy. If some people want to invite their
friends, you can easily add them, and Excel updates the tally. You add what
food people are bringing, and input how much money each person spent;
Excel can now tell you how much money each person should chip in. If a few
friends don’t drink, you can tweak the math to discount the cost of beer from
their contributions. Last minute cancellations are no problem either; just
remove people from the list, and all the numbers immediately get
recomputed.
None of this math is hard to do; it could be done just as easily by a middle
schooler as a sophisticated piece of software. But it’s irritating to do. Excel
provides a solution: Write a few formulas—a simple program—and have a
computer do the arithmetic for us. In that, Excel isn’t valuable because it does
something that’s incomprehensible; it’s valuable because it does something
that’s easily understandable, over and over, at incomprehensible speed.
While we could write programs to do the same thing in any number of

languages, the genius of Excel is in its interface. Excel doesn’t force people
to learn an entire language, but it doesn’t discourage them from writing code
either; instead, it makes the code they write remarkably efficient. By
embedding all of the computational logic in spreadsheet cells, Excel’s users
don’t have to worry about variable assignment or object definition, much less
much knottier things like development environments or package
dependencies. They just enter their numbers, and write simple formulas to
manipulate them.
This efficiency disguises what Excel really is: An interface for writing
programs. In doing so, hundreds of millions of people who wouldn’t call
themselves programmers became programmers, and Excel formulas became
the most widely used code in the world. And Excel, which at first glance is
little more than a calculator running on a loop,¹ turned into a limitless platform
for automation, capable of planning parties, creating personal budgets, and
modeling entire businesses and industries.
Automate anything
If Excel is for automating arithmetic, more traditional programming languages
are for automating anything on the internet. You can collect data from Twitter.
You can clean up a century of baseball box scores. You can send emails,
reformat messy files, start your vacuum cleaner, feed your cat, order a Range
Rover, check your flight status, and digitally stamp your exclusive ownership
of a reference to a link to a jpeg of a single green pixel.²
There is, as a matter of both convenience and genuine influence, enormous

power in doing these things automatically. By figuring out how to search for
tweets programmatically, I was able to fix my strategy for playing Wordle.³ By
writing a script that would automatically find promising candidates and send
them messages on LinkedIn, a friend of mine became many times more
productive as a recruiter and changed the course of his career.[⁴
These examples, unfortunately, are the exception. Both my friend and I work
in the tech industry, and were surrounded by others who could inspire us to
search for these sorts of automations. Most people aren't so lucky. They don't
have the examples to emulate that we did, or teammates who they could
learn from.
But what they do have, as Excel shows us, is the ability. Programming
custom logic into an interface isn't some rare talent; it just has too many
prerequisites. Setting up an environment to write, manage, and run code has
too many complicated steps, and too much can go wrong during each one. In
Excel, you can model the entire global economy without parsing a single
stack trace; in general programming experiences, you can't get to "Hello,

world" without doing so.
Which raises an obvious question: Could there be an Excel for generic

scripting? Just as Excel made it possible for billions of people to write code to
automate arithmetic, could there be a tool that makes it possible for billions of
people to automate anything?
Excel for Everything

This isn’t an entirely novel concept, and lots of popular tools solve adjacent
problems. Nothing, however, quite hits the nail on the head.
Zapier is great for connecting different apps together, but it encourages

people to follow prebuilt recipes and use code as a (still complicated) escape
hatch. Excel, by contrast, simplifies the code necessary to do certain things,
but embraces coding as part of its interface.
Airtable and Retool help people create lightweight applications with

interactive widgets. Though these can be used for a wide range of problems,
they aren’t really meant to automate generic tasks. Their success, however,
shows how imaginative people can be once they’re given tools that make
hard things easy.
Notebooks and hosted Python runtimes get closer, but tools like these are too
open-ended. They solve the development environment problem, and create
an interface that, if you really squint, looks like a series of linked cells like
Excel. But they require people to write and debug raw Python, from start to
finish. For example, when planning a party, you can simply type in attendees’
names into Excel, and then use Excel’s formula language to gradually add
more complexity. In a notebook, that list has to be created in Python directly.
It’s a pool with only a deep end.
What, then, would be better? How do we give people a shallow end, and let
them swim into deeper waters?
In my view, we could build a more generalized Excel as a collection of

interconnected blocks, where each block contains a spreadsheet (or other
data structure) of its own. For each block, you could either enter data directly
into it, as you would in Excel, or read from other blocks, just as formulas in
Excel do. In the latter case, the formulas could be simple functions for
performing common actions, or they could be generic Python. Each cell is, in
effect, a tiny lambda, with easy-to-access inputs.
The rest of the interface should make it easy to control how data moves
around the blocks, and to see the intermediate outputs that each block
produces. Each bit of Python, then, could be focused on exactly the job it
needed to do—parse some text, reformat a data structure, call an API. The
goal, in other words, should be to make each block small enough that it could
be copied from Stack Overflow.
By making each block run independently (i.e., they can read from other
blocks but aren’t defined by other blocks, just as logic in one Excel cell is
independent of the logic in other cells), people can work piecemeal, without
having to think about the entire system in their head. This interface would let
people construct programs iteratively, with the UI guiding them to add more
complexity just as Excel’s does.
Admittedly, I haven’t considered all of the details here. And it’s possible
someone else has tried this, and it didn’t work.⁵ But given the success of
Excel, the power in simple programs, and the accessibility of languages like
Python once you remove all of the preconditions that are typically required to
use it, it’s hard to dismiss the possibilities of what a combination of Python
and Excel could do.⁶
If I were living on another timeline, it’d be an idea that I’d want to explore. As
someone who’s scattered dozens of Python scripts around my laptop and
Dropbox account, I want a tool that would help make them easier to build and
manage. And as someone who’s tried to deploy a number of AWS Lambdas
internally at Mode, but has always been stymied by some API gateway
permission, incomprehensible IAM configurations, or the unholy nightmare
that is AWS CloudWatch, I’d love a tool that makes Lambdas serverless and
painless.⁷
But more importantly, I think it’d be cool if a lot more people could do this too.
“You can do anything”

Back in Mode’s early days, I was talking to a couple engineers about an idea
for a new feature. At some point during the conversation, I asked them if it
was possible to build it. In response, one engineer said, “It’s a computer. You
can build anything.”
Initially, I thought it was a hyperbolic throwaway line, like a parent telling a kid
that they can eat whatever they want at a mall food court. I’ve got a few
choices, but I can’t actually build anything…can I?
No, I was told; he meant it literally. Within the bounds of a few physical laws
about the speed of light, we could build anything. Some things will be harder
or take longer, but eventually, if we can think of it, we could make a computer
do it.
It took me a while to truly internalize this idea, but there’s something magical
about finally understanding what he meant. There’s something magical about
seeing a problem and knowing—knowing—that, somehow, some way, it can
be solved. There’s something magical about running a program and watching
it slowly tick through its operations, each printout simultaneously affirming
that you figured out the puzzle, and deepening your sense of amazement
about how any of this actually works. And there’s something magical about
hitting enter—always a little harder than normal—to run these scripts, and still
feeling a shooting pride and reflexive smile as I watch them go.⁸
Sadly, most efforts to share this feeling with people focus on turning people
into professional programmers. Programming, we’re implicitly told, is a
career, not a skill. Or worse still, programmers are who you are, and some
people just aren’t math people.
Someone—some thing—should change that narrative. Programming is

simply a tool, applicable to everything from planning a party to blogging, and
to every career from recruiter to lawyer. With a bit of help to make it more
accessible, anyone can do it—and with it, anyone can do anything.
1 I mean a literal calculator, with buttons and a screen and C and CE keys
that allegedly do different things.
2 For sale, 300 ETH, OBO.
3 Prior to this post, I was 16 for 18. After changing my strategy, 20 for 20,
with only one game going six turns.
4 This was years ago; since then, people have built a number of products
that do the same thing.
5 In which case, my stance is no one has truly tried it.
6 And yes, while you can kinda sorta run Python inside of actual Excel, that
largely misses the point. The interface should be designed around using
Python; Python can’t be tacked on to today’s spreadsheets.
7 Given how simple the substantive parts of the these Lambdas are, and
how complex the cruft around them is, I’ve always felt that they represent
a huge missed opportunity. Two things I’d immediately want to invest in:
“Lambdas, but better,” and “Slack, but more like email.”
8 I have a pet theory that this is one of the reasons dbt is popular. It
introduced a lot of people to the command line—and, by extension, to the
feeling that comes with executing a program on it. Moreover, most of the
interface of the dbt’s command line product is a slow drip of green
success indicators. To the cynical software engineer, this is just a day on
the job. But to the rest of us, it’s a satisfying mix of power and wonder,
like seeing under the hood a car for the first time.
Like Comment Share
If you liked this post from benn.substack, why not share it?
Share
© 2022 Benn Stancil Unsubscribe

The Next Billion Programmers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

The Next Billion Programmers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Next Billion Programmers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11/02/2022 16:22 Gmail - The next billion programmers

Ricardo Walter Hildebrand <ricardo.walter@gmail.com>

The next billion programmers

The next billion

Where millennials learned Excel.

there’s anything special about it”—occupy the seemingly reasonable middle

In contrast, Excel shows us something much more relatable—the power of

Consider a simple everyday application of Excel: Planning a party for the

While we could write programs to do the same thing in any number of

There is, as a matter of both convenience and genuine influence, enormous

stack trace; in general programming experiences, you can't get to "Hello,

Which raises an obvious question: Could there be an Excel for generic

Excel for Everything

Zapier is great for connecting different apps together, but it encourages

Airtable and Retool help people create lightweight applications with

In my view, we could build a more generalized Excel as a collection of

“You can do anything”

Someone—some thing—should change that narrative. Programming is

2 For sale, 300 ETH, OBO.

5 In which case, my stance is no one has truly tried it.

Like Comment Share

© 2022 Benn Stancil Unsubscribe

You might also like