VBA to perform Text Diff (but with >2500 Char per cell)

[potatoooooooo]

Hey I am new here, just joined few days ago but I am working on a task to perform text diff, on a detailed scale to cells in a column (comparing previous and current versions). Working on the core function of text diff with string formatting to highlight differences (strikethroughs for deleted words, underline for added words) and I have found a similar thread here that has been a great help. However the final VBA code I referenced from that thread could only return 1000+ characters out of the total 2500+ characters for every run. I did some research and turns out even though Excel has a single cell memory of up to 32,000 characters, performing complicated calculations on it will reduce the amount of characters being stored in the memory, resulting in the new characters replacing the old characters in the memory, and only printing the final portion of the whole result. Is there any way to go about this? I am using VBA as the company has OS restrictions and VBA Macros is the one most commonly used under the company policies.

The link to that thread is here.

As you can see @DieterG's code only prints a portion of the output: (I am using his StringDiff and ColoredCellTextDiffNew)

haim's commentary on international labour law delves into normative questions concerning the scope and substance of labour law within individual nation states. Although his primary focus is on the essence and "spirit" of international labour law, he also presents his understanding of the general purpose of labour law: to protect workers and ensure a minimum standard of living for citizens. He concludes that "the final purpose of international labour law is to safeguard a minimum standard of labour achievements from international competition, forming a human charter" (286). In contrast, Isaäc Pieter de Vooys offered a more detailed and distinct perspective on these issues two years later in his article "Labour Legislation and Economic Possibilities" (1923). De Vooys, a Dutch mechanical engineer, industrialist, social critic, and poet, argued that the development of labour law and the consequent enhancement of workers' terms and conditions must occur "within the limits set by economic laws" (de Vooys, 181). This means that wage increases should not surpass productivity growth. He believed that efforts to improve workers' conditions too rapidly would be counterproductive. Given that productivity levels differ between countries and regions, de Vooys suggested two main objectives for labour law. Firstly, it should establish minimum standards below which labour conditions must not fall (183). Secondly, it should support trade unions and collective bargaining as the most effective methods for adjusting wages according to productivity levels. Additionally, labour law should regulate the demands of trade unions and workers to ensure they do not violate economic laws (185). De Vooys proposed a highly technocratic view of labour law, arguing that wages are a matter of economic fact rather than moral or political considerations (184-185). While this reasoning might be familiar in contemporary debates about national minimum wage policies, it was relatively novel at the time he wrote (183). Although these two early articles from the ILR period mark the beginning of the debate on the appropriate or desired purposes of labour law, this discussion waned for several decades before resurfacing with renewed interest towards the end of the twentieth century.

Mahaim’s commentary on international labour law addresses normative questions about the scope and substance of labour law within nation states. Although the primary focus of his contribution is the substance and “spirit” of international labour law, he reveals his own understanding of labour law’s purpose in general – namely, the protection of the worker and the guarantee to citizens of a minimum standard of living. He concludes that “the final purpose of international labour law is to place beyond attack from international competition a minimum of conquests in the world of labour, such as shall constitute a human charter” (286). A more extended and very different consideration of these matters was presented by Isaäc Pieter de Vooys two years later in an article on “Labour Legislation and Economic Possibilities” (1923). De Vooys was a Dutch mechanical engineer and industrialist, a social critic and a poet. The main thesis of his article is that the development of labour law and the consequent improvement in workers’ terms and conditions of employment and in their standard of living must always proceed “within the limits set by economic laws” (de Vooys, 181). In other words, wage increases must not outpace increases in productivity. Attempts to improve the worker’s lot at too great a speed will be self-defeating. Since productivity levels can vary between countries and localities, it follows that the appropriate purposes of labour law are twofold. Firstly, it can properly be used to set minimum standards below which conditions of labour must not fall (183). Secondly, it should be used to support trade unions and collective bargaining as potentially the most effective means of adjusting wages in line with productivity levels. At the same time, labour law serves the purpose of controlling the demands of trade unions and workers, ensuring that these, too, do not breach economic laws (185). De Vooys offers a strongly technocratic idea of labour law. Wages, he believes, are neither a moral nor a political matter but rather a question of economic fact (184–185). Today, this line of reasoning may be familiar. For example, it may be brought up in policy debates about the benefits and risks of introducing a national minimum wage. At the time he was writing, however, de Vooys was able to claim that his points were rarely advanced during any discussion of the subject (183). Although we can identify the beginnings of the debate about the proper, or desired, purposes of labour law in these two articles from the early years of the ILR, this discussion subsided for several decades before being taken up again, with renewed enthusiasm, towards the end of the twentieth century.

, labour law shouldserves regulatethe purpose of controlling the demands of trade unions and workers, toensuring ensurethat theythese, too, do not violatebreach economic laws (185). De Vooys proposedoffers a highlystrongly technocratic viewidea of labour law,. arguingWages, thathe wagesbelieves, are neither a mattermoral ofnor economica factpolitical matter but rather thana moralquestion orof politicaleconomic considerationsfact (184-–185). WhileToday, this line of reasoning mightmay be familiar. For example, it may be brought up in contemporarypolicy debates about the benefits and risks of introducing a national minimum wage. policies,At itthe time he was relativelywriting, novelhowever, atde theVooys timewas heable wroteto (183).claim Althoughthat thesehis twopoints earlywere articlesrarely fromadvanced during any discussion of the ILRsubject period(183). Although markwe can identify the beginningbeginnings of the debate onabout the appropriateproper, or desired, purposes of labour