[airstrike]

> The existing Name Manager in Excel allows any formula to be given a name. If we name our function PYTHAGORAS, then a formula such as PYTHAGORAS(3,4) evaluates to 5. Once named, you call the function by name, eliminating the need to repeat entire formulas when you want to use them.

That's the biggest issue with LET / LAMBDA at the moment. Users are terrified of the name manager and simply do not understand what they are for or what "scope" means. On top of that, copying content from one workbook to another leads to names being copied over as well, which is how I often end up with ancient names such as FXRATE1997

[the_other_b]

I have a BS in Computer Science and whenever I help people pick up programming I notice scope is always one of the toughest concepts for them to grasp.

It could of course be a reflection of my teaching ability, but it always seems to be a tough one.

[oooooooooooow]

Strange! Sadly I don't remember the experience of learning about scope myself (I was too young), now I find it hard to see the "mind state" that makes it hard to understand.

Isn't it a feature of natural languages to have the same word assume different meanings depending on where it's used? The concept translates nicely, and in PLs it's completely explicit whenever this happens.

[VVertigo]

That is an interesting thought: although, it is something that non-native speakers struggle with when learning a new language. I wonder if that is a factor when learning a new computer language/concept too.

I suspect it is also related to the Curse of Knowledge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge). Once you are past the hurdle of initially learning a concept it makes it hard to imagine not being able to grasp it: especially when dealing with abstract concepts such as scopes.

[oooooooooooow]

Exactly what I was trying to express (the Curse of knowledge), thank you for bringing it up, wasn't aware of the phrase.