Is RPN still relevant?

[Peter Klein]

Why do I prefer RPN? Because in the mid-70s, after using a simple four-banger, I got an RPN-based Novus/National Semiconductor "Mathematician." It took me all of 10 minutes to learn RPN. I loved it and never looked back. When I found out about the programmable HP-25, I bought one.

I think there are two key aspects to HP calculators: RPN, and the quality of design and manufacture. The latter includes the feel of the keys, which I think is a major part of the appeal to many of us.

I can use an algebraic calculator, awkwardly, but I prefer RPN. Perhaps if my first scientific had been an algebraic machine, I would prefer that now. But though I started with a simple algebraic machine, something about RPN resonated with me, and said, "this is for you."

As for relevance, there's mass market relevance, as in, "we can sell this to everyone." Then there's the relevance of a tool that a certain subset of people like and want to use. Economy of scale means that a niche product is going to be more expensive. But it's still relevant enough that RPN products are made.

Perhaps the best indication of RPN's relevance is the number of HP simulators for mobile devices. Surely not everyone who buys them are doing so out of nostalgia.

If you want coffee, you can use a generic coffee maker, or you can use an espresso machine. RPN calculators are the equivalent of espresso machines.