[VA] SRC#005- April, 1st Mean Minichallenge

[Valentin Albillo]

.
Hi again, Maximilian:

(04-11-2019 02:13 PM)Maximilian Hohmann Wrote:  II don't understand that either. They had everything in that calculator already. And there is still a market for good quality BASIC programmable calculators as Ti shows us every day...
A reason why I like the Ti Voyage 200 so much is because for me it is kind of a 21st century successor of the HP-71B: With a dedicated typewriter keyboard, an excellent BASIC language and connectivity. Plus of course some modern goodies like a fast processor, plenty of memory, a graphic display and CAS.

Seems like a very interesting machine, all the more if you recommend it as I know for sure that you're also very fond of HP-71B BASIC, so I think I'll soon have a thorough look at it and if I like what I see it's perfectly possible that I'll get one for my ultra-portable, on-the-go calc needs (as my Samsung tablet is not that ultra-portable, go71b is nearly unusable on it, and also I do not like or trust the Prime). It would be my very first ever TI machine !

On a side note, I've never understood why HP calc fans are so uninterested (even dismissive) about the HP-71B and 71B BASIC. It could be due to its unavailability when it was released, as it was so expensive that most HP fans couldn't lay their hands on one, but now that you can get one for peanuts (even as a gift) or in emulated form for nothing (Emu71/DOS, Emu71/Windows), the main reason for not owning and using one has become utterly moot.

Matter of fact, it runs so many rings around anything RPN in all counts, and even exponentially more rings around RPL (all flavours) in terms of code readability and maintenance, that I find it very hard to understand why people would prefer to use those languages for anything other than simple throw-away programs or implementing "libraries" or doing stackrobatics and such.

I think that the moment they must develop a significantly complex (even real-life) application, while further being expected to understand and maintain it in the not-so-near future, they'll see what I mean. I still perfectly understand and am able to modify or extend very long, complex 71BASIC programs (say 100-200 multi-statement lines or more) just by looking at the listing and little else. Can that be done with an equally long and complex RPL program without extensive comments, stack mapping and lots of documentation ? I seriously doubt it.

Quote:I just resized them to 640 pixels (for nostalgic reasons only because 640 x 480 pixels was at one time _the_ standard for video graphics displays...). If this is still too large I can reduce them further.

That's perfect, no need for further size reduction. Thanks a lot for so promptly and efficiently honoring my request and for your entire post, much appreciated.

Best regards.
V.
.