"Daniel Wilkins" <t...@parlementum.net> wrote:
> Something to consider is that there *are* areas where libreoffice is
> deficient.
Yup.
>
> It's not uncommon for businesses to have a terrifying amount of embedded
> visual
> basic and incredibly elaborate excel macros, I wouldn't be surprised if the
> (possibly theoretical) suit literally can't get their work done because they
> don't have access to their scripts and macros that some secretary wrote in
> 1999. Any migration which messes with office, if you want it to be successful
> you really need a serious period of testing where you grab up as many
> business-essential documents as you can and identifying scripts and macros
> which may become problems, then rewriting them in LO compatible way (LO
> has scripting, it's just not *literally* vbscript). It has a basic dialect
> so translation shouldn't necessarily be hard, just time consuming.
I'd like to shoot the person who first decided that documents should
contain arbitrary macros (can we really call them that way, as it's
imperative? I associated macros with a declarative style) that varies
their contents.
But indeed, that doesn't help anyone who's made the unwise decision
to do so, at least not anymore. Their stuff will break, guaranteed.
Though repeating the mistake by re-writing stuff in yet another
'macro' language, embedded in documents, is something that I'd rather
see avoided.
--schaafuit.
