Top three calculators ?

[Waon Shinyoe]

1. TI-NSpire CAS
Convenient for almost everything. The full alphabetical keyboard is also really nice (I prefer the Clickpad version) that I can type pretty fast.

2. TI-89 Titanium
EEPro is THE killer app.

3. WP-34S
For daily use / unit conversion, etc.

[Voldemar]

1. HP 35s
2. HP Prime
3. HP 50g

[cjmcc]

For my favorites, I would say:
1) HP-15C (from undergrad days)
2) HP-29C (from high school days, recently re-acquired)
3) GO25C (on my Android phone)

For most heavily used, the list would probably be:
1) HP-15C
2) HP-35s or HP-33s (in easy reach from desk at home or work)
3) HP-50g

[Graan]

1) Free42 on Win7 when sitting at my desk at work.
2) Free42 on Android when moving and at home.
3) Have a 35s as well on my desk at work.

[Pekis]

(04-03-2018 09:17 PM)John Keith Wrote:  ...
Though the Prime is quite fast and has a nicer display, I find the 50g and RPL more efficient and intuitive than the Prime and its BASIC-like language.

Intuitive RPL, is it a joke ?

I'm a son of a Basic, which seems way more readable to me ...

[pier4r]

(04-05-2018 07:42 AM)Pekis Wrote:  Intuitive RPL, is it a joke ?

Do you want to argue subjectivity?

It is true that you can make a pool and get what is more readable for the audience, but it doesn't mean that one person should be forced to find other structures (RPL) less readable.

Some people find RPN and RPL better than infix and basic. That's it.
I for one love RPL, but I say that Basic is more readable. As RPN is pretty neat, but infix is more readable.

[Pekis]

(04-05-2018 08:37 AM)pier4r Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 07:42 AM)Pekis Wrote:  Intuitive RPL, is it a joke ?

Do you want to argue subjectivity?

It is true that you can make a pool and get what is more readable for the audience, but it doesn't mean that one person should be forced to find other structures (RPL) less readable.

Some people find RPN and RPL better than infix and basic. That's it.
I for one love RPL, but I say that Basic is more readable. As RPN is pretty neat, but infix is more readable.

But I think no one can deny that the mind can't figure instantly what all these stack operations are doing in RPL (and RPN), and you'll end up documenting with pseudo-code tasting like ... BASIC:


Day of week:

RPL
<< ROT 2 -
IF DUP 0 < THEN
12 +
SWAP 1 - SWAP
END
3 ROLLD
100 / DUP FP 100 * SWAP IP
DUP 4 / IP SWAP 2 * - SWAP DUP 4 / IP
+ + + SWAP 2.6 * .2 - IP + 7 MOD
{ "Sunday"
"Monday"
"Tuesday"
"Wednesday"
"Thrusday"
"Friday"
"Saturday" }
SWAP 1 + GET
>>

Basic:
Function ZellerDoW$(yr, mo, dy)
m = mo - 2
if m<1 then
m = m + 12
yr = yr - 1
end if
c = int(yr/100)
d = yr - 100*int(yr/100)
f = int(2.6*m - 0.2) + dy + d + int(d/4) + int(c/4) + 5*c
f = f - 7*int(f/7)
dow$ = "Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday"
ZellerDoW$ = word$(dow$, f+1)
end function

[pier4r]

(04-05-2018 10:16 AM)Pekis Wrote:  But I think no one can deny that the mind can't figure instantly what all these stack operations are doing in RPL (and RPN),

This depends on how much one is used with those operations, plus on how one writes code.

Quote:and you'll end up documenting with pseudo-code tasting like ... BASIC:


Day of week:

Basic:
Function ZellerDoW$(yr, mo, dy)
m = mo - 2
if m<1 then
m = m + 12
yr = yr - 1
end if
c = int(yr/100)
d = yr - 100*int(yr/100)
f = int(2.6*m - 0.2) + dy + d + int(d/4) + int(c/4) + 5*c
f = f - 7*int(f/7)
dow$ = "Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday"
ZellerDoW$ = word$(dow$, f+1)
end function

To be honest, is not that your function (basic or RPL) is that understandable. Unless you know the algorithm you are looking to (but then you do not need a function from someone else). I get the parameters years, month and day of the year (dy)? And then the other variables are not explaining themselves, aside from dow.
Comments are missing too.

To me it is like this : https://stackoverflow.com/a/316233

Also your RPL is mostly stack. Who said that should it be so? Put some inputs in with variables (hopefully not based on one letter) and some comments and that's it.

[hp41cx]

TI-58C It has continuous memory and has all the programs I need.
It's one of the most beautiful and charming calculators I have in my collection

[Valentin Albillo]

.
Hi, Michael:

(04-02-2018 04:07 PM)Michael de Estrada Wrote:  So what are your top three calculators, based on daily usage ?

Based exclusively in actual day-to-day use, these are mine:

1) HP-71B

2) HP-71B

3) HP-71B

Fitted with Math, HP-IL and JPC ROMs (plus 256 Kb RAM) it's utterly unbeatable in terms of power and ease of use and I actually do use it extensively *every day* for all my quick'n'dirt computational needs on the go, with power to spare.

Plus I can understand and modify my code months later without needing to document it extensively beforehand. Even third parties have no great trouble to understand it, if needed. Try that with RPL.

V.
.

[Harald]

(04-05-2018 04:26 PM)Valentin Albillo Wrote:  .
Hi, Michael:

(04-02-2018 04:07 PM)Michael de Estrada Wrote:  So what are your top three calculators, based on daily usage ?

Based exclusively in actual day-to-day use, these are mine:

1) HP-71B

2) HP-71B

3) HP-71B

Fitted with Math, HP-IL and JPC ROMs (plus 256 Kb RAM) it's utterly unbeatable in terms of power and ease of use and I actually do use it extensively *every day* for all my quick'n'dirt computational needs on the go, with power to spare.

Plus I can understand and modify my code months later without needing to document it extensively beforehand. Even third parties have no great trouble to understand it, if needed. Try that with RPL.

V.
.

The 71B was a dream for me in the late 80s and early 90s when I learned to program in basic on my Comodore C64 and later using gw basic.
Now that I finally have one, I still love it, but unfortunately I hardly ever do any basic programming in anger these days and am to used to RPN to do any number crunching with the 71B.
Would a Forth ROM give me a proper RPN calculator?

[Logan]

(04-05-2018 06:30 PM)Harald Wrote:  Now that I finally have one, I still love it, but unfortunately I hardly ever do any basic programming in anger these days

Do you ever do any when you're not angry?

[rprosperi]

(04-05-2018 06:30 PM)Harald Wrote:  Would a Forth ROM give me a proper RPN calculator?

Not really, out of the box, though you could write one in Forth; there are certainly a few examples in old issues of the PPC Journal, PPC Computer Journal, CHHU, the Paris chapter newsletter (if you read French), etc. but a better answer is the RPN BIN program by Chris Capaner, available in several of the archives in the OLDP, if you're familiar with that (e.g. on LIF volume HORN\LEX01). Note there is also an RPN LEX file, that is (IMHO) not nearly as good, though an advantage of the LEX version is source code is also floating around so you could tailor it to your tastes if so inclined (note the source is Saturn assembler, not Forth).

If you're not, and you have a PIL-Box, I can send you a .LIF file and a copy of the overlay. The overlay is not necessary for basic operators (they are where they are) but likely needed for most other functions, depending on your memory).

[Dave Frederickson]

(04-05-2018 07:34 PM)rprosperi Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 06:30 PM)Harald Wrote:  Would a Forth ROM give me a proper RPN calculator?

Not really, out of the box, though you could write one in Forth; there are certainly a few examples in old issues of the PPC Journal, PPC Computer Journal, CHHU, the Paris chapter newsletter (if you read French), etc. but a better answer is the RPN BIN program by Chris Capaner, available in several of the archives in the OLDP, if you're familiar with that (e.g. on LIF volume HORN\LEX01). Note there is also an RPN LEX file, that is (IMHO) not nearly as good, though an advantage of the LEX version is source code is also floating around so you could tailor it to your tastes if so inclined (note the source is Saturn assembler, not Forth).

If you're not, and you have a PIL-Box, I can send you a .LIF file and a copy of the overlay. The overlay is not necessary for basic operators (they are where they are) but likely needed for most other functions, depending on your memory).

There's also C71, the HP-11C/12C/16C emulator,

http://www.jeffcalc.hp41.eu/emu71/index.html#sforth

[Dave Frederickson]

(04-05-2018 04:26 PM)Valentin Albillo Wrote:  .
Hi, Michael:

(04-02-2018 04:07 PM)Michael de Estrada Wrote:  So what are your top three calculators, based on daily usage ?

Based exclusively in actual day-to-day use, these are mine:

1) HP-71B

2) HP-71B

3) HP-71B

Fitted with Math, HP-IL and JPC ROMs (plus 256 Kb RAM) it's utterly unbeatable in terms of power and ease of use and I actually do use it extensively *every day* for all my quick'n'dirt computational needs on the go, with power to spare.

Plus I can understand and modify my code months later without needing to document it extensively beforehand. Even third parties have no great trouble to understand it, if needed. Try that with RPL.

V.
.

Dang! Looks kinda like my list except I do have a DM-15L in my briefcase.

Looks like a nice setup, just needs a FRAM71 to really kick ass.

Dave

[Harald]

(04-05-2018 07:34 PM)rprosperi Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 06:30 PM)Harald Wrote:  Would a Forth ROM give me a proper RPN calculator?

If you're not, and you have a PIL-Box, I can send you a .LIF file and a copy of the overlay. The overlay is not necessary for basic operators (they are where they are) but likely needed for most other functions, depending on your memory).

I don't have a PIL-box yet, but have recently acquired an IL module, an waiting for the contacts to make a connector and will probably get a PIL-box soon.
So the files would be appreciated.

Cheers,
Harald

[Harald]

(04-05-2018 08:22 PM)Dave Frederickson Wrote:  There's also C71, the HP-11C/12C/16C emulator,

http://www.jeffcalc.hp41.eu/emu71/index.html#sforth

That does look very interesting in deed.
So how would I go about getting this to work on my 71B?
Assuming I won't be lucky enough to find one of those modules.

Cheers,
Harald

[Dave Frederickson]

(04-05-2018 08:41 PM)Harald Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 08:22 PM)Dave Frederickson Wrote:  There's also C71, the HP-11C/12C/16C emulator,

http://www.jeffcalc.hp41.eu/emu71/index.html#sforth

That does look very interesting in deed.
So how would I go about getting this to work on my 71B?
Assuming I won't be lucky enough to find one of those modules.

Cheers,
Harald

The ROM can be burned into a 64k CMT EPROM. If you just want to get a feel for the module it can also be loaded into Emu71.

[lrdheat]

HP 30b RPN, great stats support (size of data base a bit limited), easy to find math operations on keys or menus (not too cluttered, not too much to remember). Programming is difficult, limited, a weak point, but looking at this question from a calculator point of view. Keyboard on my example is good.

CASIO fx-CG50 excellent math/statistics/unit conversion function set, fast (much faster than TI 84 CE, not in same ballpark as the PRIME), excellent graphing and analysis tools. Intuitive entry...rarely have syntax errors arise. Pants pocketable, but not for shirt pocket.

WP 34S amazing capabilities!...a bit to remember as result, a bit of effort required to find some operations. Unit conversions somewhat limited, matrix/vector support is limited.

[pier4r]

(04-05-2018 04:26 PM)Valentin Albillo Wrote:  Even third parties have no great trouble to understand it, if needed. Try that with RPL.

For the programs that I saw (for example in the datafiles, MATER71). I can say that they are great programs, but readable? No all the parts (note: if I strip away the entire article around the program. Otherwise with such articles they are understandable).


For me understandable means: if I expose an algorithm to a random person, new to it but not alien to algorihtms in general. One should get the gist of it without debugging (with the help of the system or manually) with some test input. And programs with little commands, many variables with single letter (but even 2-3) and so on are far from being readable. Already adding comments helps to understand an algorithm.

Even less when the program is packed. Like cmd1 cmd2 cmd3 cmd4 cmd5 and so on on the same line. Can be RPL, basic or what you want. It is not that readable.

Anyway I don't want to convince anyone, I gave my point of view and I acknowledge that for some writing (what I find is) cryptic code is ok and then strangely complains about the same in RPL/awk/perl/what not. Such is life.