That’s true, but how often have you heard a finance team member wanting a CSV file so they can more easily process the data using Pandas or visualize it with MatPlotLib? How many accountants or finance people (especially those that ask for everything in Excel) do you know that is comfortable writing even a single line of Python code? How many of the finance team’s Excel-based tools will Python integrate well with? What feature(s) does Python within Excel provide that Excel (formulas, pivot tables, VBA, Power Query, Power Pivot, etc.) does not provide that someone on the finance team would need? What advanced charting/dashboarding functionality does Python in Excel provide that isn’t better accomplished in PowerBI (if not handled by standard Excel charts/graphs)?

Don’t get me wrong - Microsoft’s implementation of Python in Excel has its merits and will solve some problems that otherwise would not be possible in Excel and will make some people happy. However, this is not the solution most people were expecting, asking for, or find useful.

I agree with everything you said, but (in Microsoft’s eyes) this is a feature - not a bug.

Without this cloud component, how could:

• Microsoft make sure that the accounting team does not introduce a malicious/old Python library into the Excel file?
• Microsoft protect its users from writing/running inefficient, buggy, or malicious Python code?
• Microsoft provide a Python runtime to users who do not know how to install Python?
• Microsoft charge to run code that you wrote in a free, open source software programming language on a device that you own?

Over a year later and I still do not understand what the use case for this is.

A lot of the examples/documentation that was made by Microsoft for this seems to focus on data analysis and data visualization. Anyone in those fields would probably prefer to get the data out of Excel and into their tool/pipeline of choice instead of running their Python code in Excel. That also makes the big assumption that the data being used is fully contained within the Excel file and that the libraries used within the code are avalaible in Excel (including the library version).

For anyone looking to learn/use Excel better, I doubt the best use of their time is learning a new programming language and how Excel implements that programming language. They would likely be better off learning Excel’s formulas, pivot tables, charts, etc. They could even learn Power Query to take things to another level.

For anyone looking to learn Python, this is absolutely a terrible way to do so. For example, it abstracts away library maintenance, could provide modified error messages, and makes the developer feedback loop more complicated.

If you want to automate Excel then this realistically allows for very little new functionality that did not exist prior to this feature. Using other Python libraries like OpenPyxl and xlWings will still be required to automate Excel.

I am sure there are edge cases where this iteration of Python in Excel is perfect. However, this feels like a checkbox filler (“yeah, Excel supports Python now”) than an implementation of an actual useful feature. A fully featured and supported Python library that manipulates Excel/Excel files would have been a much more exciting and useful feature - even if it had to be executed outside of Excel, like OpenPyxl.

I did not know about autolinks - thanks for the link!

It is interesting how different parsers handle this exact situation. I usually am cautious about it because I typically am not sure how it will be handled if I am not explicit with the URL and additional text.

I’m curious about this. The source text of your comment appears that your comment was just the URL with no markdown. For your comment about a markdown parsing bug to be true, shouldn’t the URL have been written in markdown with []() notation (or a space between the URL and the period) since a period is a valid URL character? For example, instead of typing https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html., should [https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html.](https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html) have been typed?

tl;dr: A notable marketshare of multiple browser components and browsers must exist in order to properly ensure/maintain truly open web standards.

It is important that Firefox and its components like Gecko and Spidermonkey to exist as well as maintain a notable marketshare. Likewise, it is important for WebKit and its components to exist and maintain a notable marketshare. The same is true for any other browser/rendering/JavaScript engines.

While it is great that we have so many non-Google Chrome alternatives like Chromium, Edge, Vivaldi, etc., they all use the same or very similar engines. This means that they all display and interact with websites nearly identically.

When Google decides certain implementation/interpretation of web standards, formats, behavior, etc. should be included in Google Chrome (and consequently all Chromium based browsers), then the majority marketshare of web browsers will behave that way. If the Chrome/Chromium based browsers reaches a nearly unanimous browser marketshare, then Google can either ignore any/all open web standards, force their will in deciding/implementing new open web standards, or even become the defacto open web standard.

When any one entity has that much control over the open web standards, then the web standards are no longer truly “open” and in this case becomes “Google’s web standards”. In some (or maybe even many) cases, this may be fine. However, we saw with Internet Explorer in the past this is not something that the market should allow. We are seeing evidence that we shouldn’t allow Google to have this much influence with things like the adoption of JPEG XL or implementation of FLoC.

With three or more browser engines, rendering engines, and browsers with notable marketshares, web developers are forced to develop in adherence to the accepted open web standards. With enough marketshare spread across those engines/browsers, the various engines/browsers are incentivized to maintain compatibility with open web standards. As long as the open web standards are designed and maintained without overt influence by a single or few entities and the open standards are actively used, then the best interest of the collective of all internet users is best served.

Otherwise, the best interest of a few entities (in this case Google) is best served.