Post Reply 
HP Prime vs HP 49G/50G Programming
05-28-2018, 04:50 PM
Post: #1
HP Prime vs HP 49G/50G Programming
Has anyone done a translation guide between the HP Prime and HP 49g/50g?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-28-2018, 07:01 PM
Post: #2
RE: HP Prime vs HP 49G/50G Programming
Not that I know and I would be interested. Although if someone picks up RPL, then HP PPL is pretty straightforward (aside from the not so clear documentation, compensated greatly by the community).

Wikis are great, Contribute :)
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-28-2018, 10:12 PM
Post: #3
RE: HP Prime vs HP 49G/50G Programming
Quote:if someone picks up RPL, then HP PPL is pretty straightforward
That’s an interesting statement. They seem very different to me both in surrounding calculator architecture as well as RPL’s stack based RPN approach vs Prime’s traditional algebraic basic/pascal programming style.

Perhaps it’s like driving a manual car (PPL), if you can do that then driving an automatic transmission (Prime) is easy? On the other hand I’d guess that someone who can program a structured language like the Prime couldn’t easily go the other way, and would look at a RPL program listing and wince a little.

I wonder how many found that their RPL programming knowledge prepared them for programming the Prime?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-29-2018, 01:31 AM
Post: #4
RE: HP Prime vs HP 49G/50G Programming
In my opinion based on personal experience, there is no translation "system" that could be used. I have found that both UserRPL and SysRPL on the 50g are so slow to read and make sense of a few months or possibly years after you wrote it yourself, that it's quicker just to re-write in PPL. As long as you understand the purpose of the program, it's much faster to create the equivalent PPL program than RPL. And as an added bonus, when looking at PPL code later, it is much easier and faster to understand (at least to me) and as a result to debug and such.

I should add that the above is especially true for optimized RPL programs that make good use of the stack for complex calculations.

The guide could be called "Forget everything about RPL and learn a new and improved language. The End."

Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed writing RPL programs, it's the reading part that I don't like.

Others may disagree.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-29-2018, 02:38 AM
Post: #5
RE: HP Prime vs HP 49G/50G Programming
(05-28-2018 04:50 PM)Eddie W. Shore Wrote:  Has anyone done a translation guide between the HP Prime and HP 49g/50g?

No I have not. I don't know HPPPL at all so I couldn't do it anyway. And I haven't seen any such tutorial across the web.

May I ask why you are asking this question? I'm just curious.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2018, 12:42 PM
Post: #6
RE: HP Prime vs HP 49G/50G Programming
(05-29-2018 02:38 AM)Carsen Wrote:  
(05-28-2018 04:50 PM)Eddie W. Shore Wrote:  Has anyone done a translation guide between the HP Prime and HP 49g/50g?

No I have not. I don't know HPPPL at all so I couldn't do it anyway. And I haven't seen any such tutorial across the web.

May I ask why you are asking this question? I'm just curious.

I received an email. He was not very happy with the HP Prime at all and didn't like that I addressed what he thought were problems of the HP Prime. He expressed concern that he wouldn't be able to translate RPL language to PPL, which lead him to dismissing the HP Prime as not an "engineering appropriate" calculator.

I spent a few lunches comparing languages between my 49G and Prime.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2018, 12:44 PM
Post: #7
RE: HP Prime vs HP 49G/50G Programming
(05-29-2018 01:31 AM)Jacob Wall Wrote:  In my opinion based on personal experience, there is no translation "system" that could be used. I have found that both UserRPL and SysRPL on the 50g are so slow to read and make sense of a few months or possibly years after you wrote it yourself, that it's quicker just to re-write in PPL. As long as you understand the purpose of the program, it's much faster to create the equivalent PPL program than RPL. And as an added bonus, when looking at PPL code later, it is much easier and faster to understand (at least to me) and as a result to debug and such.

I should add that the above is especially true for optimized RPL programs that make good use of the stack for complex calculations.

The guide could be called "Forget everything about RPL and learn a new and improved language. The End."

Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed writing RPL programs, it's the reading part that I don't like.

Others may disagree.

What intimidated me about RPL in the first place was based on RPN. Once I got familiar and worked with RPN, RPL became easier to me. That INFORM command takes a lot of practice because the syntax is very complex.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: