Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (
More info?)
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 12:54:27 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> put
finger to keyboard and composed:
>Franc Zabkar wrote:
>
>>Robert Redelmeier wrote:
>>>
>>>Is this flamebait? I always prefered HP RPN calculators for
>>>_precisely_ the same reason. I find multiple nested brackets
>>>a necessary linear convention, but otherwise unintuitive.
>>>I understand equations in terms of what must be grouped
>>>together, often because of units.
>>
>>IIRC TI calculators used a 9-level stack, albeit a hidden one. In fact
>>one could access the stack on a TI-59 using undocumented instructions.
>>So it's clear that TI machines *evaluated* the expressions in the same
>>way as HP calculators, it's just that TI calculators *accepted*
>>expressions as they were written.
>
>It's irrelvant how TI handled the calculator evaluated the
>expressions. It's the UI which is under discussion, here, and Robert
>(and many others, including myself), prefer the RPN UI.
One's *preference* for certain UIs is not at issue here. I'm merely
claiming the obvious, namely that algebraic calculators have an
intuitive UI, whereas RPN does not. Take a kid who has never heard of
RPN, give him a HP calculator without a manual, and then see how long
he takes to work out what to do.
FWIW, I'm not averse to using non-intuitive interfaces, especially
when they provide powerful features. An example is the teco character
editor which I have used extensively in the past.
As for my preference for certain UIs, these days I prefer the Windows
GUI for many tasks, and the DOS CLI for others. My current calculator
is a scientific, statistical, hex/bin/oct, algebraic one. It cost me
$5 about 15 years ago.
>>No mental gymnastics were required.
>
>Are you implying the more "mental gymnastics" are required to use an
>RPN calculator? Because that would be false.
Algebraic calculators allow me to enter an expression exactly as it is
written. The machine decides the order of processing. OTOH, RPN
calculators require that I pre-process the expression and submit it in
a form which the machine can digest.
>>Furthermore, the often touted claim that HP calculators were much more
>>economical with keystrokes was a myth which I disproved many a time.
>
>"Much more economical" sounds to me like a straw-man argument. "At
>least as, and often more, economical" is the truth, not a "myth", in
>every case I've compared the two methods.
In my day HP's marketing was making such claims. It seemed like their
mantra. Personally I've never experienced a difference of more than
about 10%. In any case, TI calculators had twice the memory, twice the
features, and cost half as much, so the UI did not affect my
purchasing decision.
>>In any case, whether or not RPN is better than algebraic is
>>irrelevant. My contention is that a person should not have to adapt to
>>technology, but that technology should adapt to him. For example, I
>>should be able to pick up any unfamiliar calculator and key in "1+2=",
>>not the counterintuitive "1 Enter 2 +".
>
>A superior (or even only preferred) tool is quite often worth the
>investment in how to use it. It's ludicrous to discount RPN
>calculators because they may take a couple days getting used-to.
I would never discount them for that reason.
>>The inner workings should be
>>transparent to the user interface.
>
>True, but many of us feel the RPN UI is vastly superior, especially
>when used in conjunction with multi-line displays.
- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.