About DM32

[Marco Polo]

(05-18-2023 12:47 AM)carey Wrote:  

(05-17-2023 05:35 PM)Don Williams Wrote:  RPL was the answer to a question that no one ever asked.

I agree that RPL was overkill for many engineers. However, for engineers whose work required symbolic and advanced numerical answers, and for calculus students, RPL was an answer to a prayer. For the cost of one software package in 1986, one could buy an HP28 with integrated symbolic and numerical capabilities that could often do more and more easily than desktop software at the time.

(05-17-2023 05:35 PM)Don Williams Wrote:  Then to add insult to injury they abandoned keystroke programming.

RPL allows "keystroke programming" by surrounding keystrokes with French quotation marks << >>.

It seems to me that many RPL advantages are ignored or minimized in praise of tradition.
As an HP calc user I was born on a 28s in 1989 and evolved passing through 48sx, 48gx, 49g+ and finally 50g.
I appreciate the extreme ductility of RPL and the consistency of operations on different data types.
Furthermore, I find even the UI quite practical and totally customizable to my needs and taste.
On my job I heavily rely upon uom management and MES
I tried to use also less powerful calculator (33s, 35s, Free42, Plus42) but I never got used to the lack of some features and the uom management, in spite of the "elegance" of some solutions.
I have a 35s in my drawer at work, but I almost always end in taking my 50g (physical or emulated)...