It is indeed good to see you back Bob, I did learn a lot from your posts years ago...

It's all friendly guys
It was taken as such, you are as frustrated as me at the way Excel has progressed.

You may be right there, but if so that is poor implementation of LET in my view. As with other instances, CF, row grouping, for example, the Excel guys have added functionality without considering for tables, even though they are pushing tables as the way to go.
I can only agree, another annoying issue is that you can't use array formulae in a table, the formulae are unable to expand the table, this is but another missed opportunity.

No, that is horrible. It is referring to columns in the table by position not by name, which is wholly at odds with the rationale of structured tables.
Again I agree, however, this is the method I use quite a bit, only on tables where I know the structure of the table will not change.

That is exactly what I am doing now, but that means that I reference the table name 3 times rather than just once, not good coding practice.
No way! I have very clearly defined coding standards
Again I have to agree, however, this is not technically "Coding" by my own definition