Lately, I’ve been following some of the discussions unfolding in Paul Barnhurst’s threads about spreadsheets “moving to the cloud.” At first glance, the conversation appears to embrace the idea that everything digital—including Excel—is inevitably headed there. Fair enough. But dig just a little deeper, and things quickly become… bizarre.

Let’s start with the broad agreement in these threads that spreadsheets are going cloud-native. That’s an oversimplification. “Cloud” can mean many things: storage, processing, collaboration, or even full-blown SaaS solutions. Without defining which “cloud” we’re talking about, we’re already in murky waters.

Another recurring sentiment is that “VBA doesn’t work in the cloud.” Again—technically true, but context matters. VBA (Visual Basic for Applications) is built on COM objects, which are native to Windows desktop environments. So yes, you can’t expect VBA to run in Google Sheets or in the online version of Excel. But does that mean cloud-based spreadsheets are useless for VBA-driven workflows? Not at all.

Many enterprise-grade Excel solutions still rely on VBA while using the cloud merely as a data storage layer. These spreadsheets don’t run in the cloud—they run on desktops connected to cloud-hosted databases. This is the classic client-server architecture: VBA uses ADO (ActiveX Data Objects) to retrieve or update data from the cloud, and the spreadsheet logic remains local. In this context, the cloud enhances the solution rather than restricting it.

On the flip side, if you’re talking about spreadsheets that live and operate entirely in the cloud—say, Office 365 online or Google Sheets—yes, you’re working in a different architectural paradigm. Functionality is more limited. You can’t expect the same richness you’d get from a full Windows desktop environment. Trying to replicate complex, VBA-heavy models in these environments is not just difficult; it’s fundamentally misaligned with how those platforms work.

Then comes the next head-scratcher: if cloud spreadsheets are primarily intended for lightweight tasks—like grocery lists, basic collaboration, or casual data entry—why are so many people advocating for them to be built with Power Query, Office Scripts, Python, or LAMBDA functions? Who is scripting a shopping list?

The confusion arises from the misuse—or outright lack of understanding—of terminology. Many in these discussions seem more focused on mentioning buzzwords (Python! Power Query! Cloud-native!) than engaging with the actual issues. That raises an important question: What is this conversation even about? Are we talking about real-life spreadsheet use cases? Are we diagnosing actual architectural challenges in business environments? Or are we just performing for the social media algorithm?

It becomes even more puzzling when certain participants repeatedly chime in with shallow remarks that avoid technical depth—yet remain conspicuously silent when directly challenged with a well-reasoned counterpoint. I’ve seen this firsthand: I asked Paul Barna to clarify a statement, and he ignored it entirely. Why? Is it because my question pointed to a deeper truth that doesn’t fit the algorithm-friendly narrative?

This whole discourse reminds me of a surreal analogy: Imagine someone drives a car off a cliff. Halfway down, they say, “Hey, look at this great angle for a photo of that beautiful church!” And when you try to raise the obvious concern—“You just drove off a cliff!”—they reply, “Oh, I don’t want to talk about that. I just wanted to show the view.”

That’s what much of this feels like—willful ignorance of the bigger picture in favor of superficial engagement.

In summary, the bizarre nature of this discussion comes down to three core problems:

1. Ambiguous terminology – “Cloud” means too many things, and no one is clarifying which one they’re referring to.
2. Misapplied complexity – Heavy-duty tools are being discussed in contexts where they make no practical sense.
3. Performative dialogue – Instead of honest technical engagement, much of the conversation seems designed to boost visibility, not insight.

We need better conversations. Ones where words are used with care, questions are answered with thought, and contributions are driven by a desire to clarify—not just to be seen.

ABSTRACT

The Bizarre Cloud Spreadsheet Debate

This piece examines the ongoing debate about spreadsheets moving to the cloud, highlighting how the discussion often lacks clarity and technical depth. The author argues that participants frequently use ambiguous terminology regarding what “cloud” means and suggest complex tools like Python or Power Query for simple, cloud-based tasks where they aren’t practical. Ultimately, the article posits that much of the online conversation appears performative, prioritizing engagement and buzzwords over genuine technical understanding or addressing real-world challenges, potentially driven more by algorithmic visibility than a desire for clear communication. The author emphasizes the need for more precise language and thoughtful responses to advance a meaningful dialogue about spreadsheet usage in different environments.