Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Steve Simpkin · 08-13-2023, 11:37 PM

(08-13-2023 09:36 PM)carey Wrote:
(08-09-2023 02:19 PM)J-F Garnier Wrote: For me, the main limitation of the 15c is the fact that program steps are still recorded as keycodes.
This seems to me absolutely archaic in 2023. I really would welcome a 15c with clear instructions à la 41C: LbL, STO, RCL, ...
It would not break any compatibility and would give a tremendous comfort for programming.
The 41C series introduced this innovative feature in 1979, unfortunately the 1981 Voyager series went back to keycodes.
It was a big step backward at the time, and I remember that I initially didn't like this series for this very reason.

There's no argument that mnemonic instructions, as in the 41C series, facilitate coding and debugging vs. key location instructions used in the 15c, but there's an interesting point that's easy to overlook about the 15c. The fact that key locations can even be used to program the 15c is remarkable and due to the fact that all its commands and functions are on the keyboard! Thus, in a sense, it's a moot comparison to the 41C series since key location wouldn't uniquely map to instructions with so many functions and commands not on the keyboard but in the catalog.

So was using key location instructions really a step backwards in the 15c? In one sense, yes. But in another sense, if one views the 15c as a personal tool, like a hammer, that becomes an unconscious extension of one's hand, the 15c keyboard is so ingrained in the minds of heavy 15c users that designating instructions by key location provides the brain (which is a master cartographer in forming and using mental maps) with the same information that would, on another calculator, require mnemonic instructions. The continued popularity of the 15c forty years after initial release suggests this mental mapping of key locations to programming instructions becomes second nature (and can be fun!).

I don't see the keycode display used on the Voyager series as so much of a step backwards since the mid-range Voyager series was not intended to compete with or follow-up on the HP-41C series. By 1980 HP had a serious problem. There were now many other brands of scientific calculators available from other manufactures that featured LCD displays and long battery life. The HP Spice models, while excellent calculators, were looking a bit long in the tooth with their LED displays and short battery life. The Pioneer series was in the planning stage but were going to take years to develop. HP needed a short term mid-range solution to compete with the other manufacture's LCD models. This is where the Voyager series came in. If you look at the design goals of the Voyagers, they needed to be priced reasonably to compete in this market. They could still command premium prices since they had features that set them apart from the competition (programmability, high quality, reliable operation, long life, etc.) but they could not charge HP-41C type prices. That meant, in part, 7-segment LCDs so no alpha instruction display. All-in-all, I think they did very well for a "short-term" solution.