| HN Mirror

Have to disagree here. I think Excel is amazingly well engineered, and very well designed for the majority of the users, despite some flaws.

Excel is a bit complicated for cut/copy/paste, because you have not only the content of the cells, but also references to cells. Cut and copy have subtly different behaviour that, I think, works well for most people's mental model.

Namely: Most instances of cut are followed by one paste, and really constitute an atomic move. That's why when you cut and paste something in Excel elsewhere, all references to cells that have been moved are updated, no matter whether they were inside the moved area or outside, and no matter whether they were relative or absolute. (Just the same as they're naturally updated if you insert or delete columns/rows above or to the left of the referenced cell).

That's why a cut "marks" the cut cells, and after you paste, nothing is marked anymore. You can't paste twice. It's akin to the Ghost Cut described in the article: an atomic move that only happens upon paste.

When you copy, however, and paste somewhere else, a) only the "relative" references among the moved cells are updated (neither absolute references nor references in cells that were not copied are updated); and b) the copied area remains "marked" and you can paste again and again.

Given the complexity of this (think about references that are ranges...), a) it's a wonder that it works as well as it does, doing the expected thing for most people most of the time, and b) it's understandable that you can't cut or copy, then modify the marked origin (it'll unmark the cells and abort the operation), then paste.

This means, incidentally, that a copy & delete in Excel is distinct from a cut.