How much has RPN/RPL spoiled you?

[Dave Britten]

(06-03-2015 05:33 AM)HrastProgrammer Wrote:  <HighLevelMode On>

I use both RPN and algebraic notation. When programming I always prefer algebraic notation (that's why I would take Pascal/BASIC/C/C++ over RPL anytime). For simple calculations RPN is probably the most convenient method but for complex calculations I appreciate the ability to recall the whole expression, make the necessary corrections and evaluate it again.

<HighLevelMode Off>

<LowLevelMode On>

Well, in assembler it's either a matter of direct calculations using registers, or some kind of stack machine (=RPN) anyway ...

<LowLevelMode Off>

I have to confess to agreeing with you. RPN (and RPL) is fantastic for number crunching, or small programs that augment the built-in functions, but for building a large, sophisticated application, it's painful at best, especially with no GOTO in RPL. Compared to a symbolic language, the code is almost always opaque and barely maintainable, with no immediately obvious connection to what's getting passed as a parameter to what, and a lack of any code commenting ability. (RPL is often called a write-only language, and I think I've heard the same epithet applied to perl and/or regular expressions.)

If I'm writing self-contained math routines, or small utility functions, an RPN/RPL machine is great for that job, and usually my first choice. But if I'm writing a program for data logging, estimating process completion via a choice of regression models on a user-selectable most-recent subset of the data, and optionally plotting the logged data points against the regression line*? Hand me the TI-89.

*I am actually doing this right now. The 89 does make me miss the alarm/audio functionality of the 48, though, that's for sure.