Yah.. Instead of this faked news you could just start thinking ... In put all information in pages "1", "2",...

Ahh, this is going to turn into a huge flamefest between anti-asm fanatics and anti-BASIC fanatics (if it hasn't already, that is...). Poor Michael. It's a good joke, though.

Sir, your statement is a bit late...

It did. See my story at the very end of the "Xpand 2.0 Released" article. Sorry about the spaces.
http://www.ticalc.org /archives/news/ articles/12/124/124847.html?p=1

Red border now. :)

>> Update: Some people need to learn how to calm down and breathe. Yes, it is a joke.

YES! But what you should also notice is the number of those wh put forth the concept that doing something about those archives is necessary.

>>But what you should also notice is the number of those wh put forth the concept that doing something about those archives is necessary.
probably so many peorle took it seiriously.

THANK GOD THIS IS A JOKE!!!

btw, i cant find people's replies to my old posts... ticalc.org needs to think of a way to handle all these comments better!!!

ARE YOU RETARDED?
Seriously, I want to know. We've been trying to tell you that for the past, oh, TWO DAYS??? Also, I really don't think that anybody cares what you think. As we said in response to your comment about startin your own website (which I doubt you even know HTML...), Not many people are going to miss you.

While I may or may not care what he thinks, I do think that we should try to be more diplomatic (or something like that) in our dealings with newbies. After all, at one time everyone was.

Oh wow! So someone wants to flame me about how retarted BASIC is... here's a decent reply!

I have a program that is 30,000 lines long in TI-68k Basic. It easily outdates any existing math program. Here are some new concepts I use:

1. Total Equations: Because the 68k solve() function can handle booleans, it is possible to combine area, side length, width, height, base area, etc. formulas to compute entire 3D figures. While this DOES require a little framework (actually a lot), it is a powerful tool.

2. Expr() within solve(). To me this is the most useful and un-thought-of idea... it allows the user to type x for the unknown for equations too complex for If statements to accomplish this.

Disp "Type x for the unknown value"
Prompt a,b,c
Disp "Answer=",
solve(expr(a)*expr(b)=expr(c),x)
<line broken because of ticalc's display problems>

3. Full calculator compatibility. This has been a disappointing aspect of some programs. Usually a program limits it's Disp strings to match 89 style calculators. Instead, my program uses intelligent word-wrap which adjusts the number of displayable characters based on the screen width (in pixels) of the calculator, taking full advantage of higher resolution 92 style calculators while allowing the program to display strings correctly on 89 style calculators.
In addition, different toolbars are displayed, and different help is displayed when the user goes to the help section of the calculator.

4. All the functions you will ever need. Algebra is NOT a focus of this program, nor is calculus, since these functions already exist in the calculator. Instead, I have covered ALL geometry topics (I went to my text book and I wrote a routine for every single figure, etc. Also included is the ability to determine if two numbers are factors of each other, time calculations (this accounts for AM/PM, not just base 60), a random integer guesser for multi-var equations, and much more.

5. Single program package. All the code is combined in a single program. Most math stuff with any significant amount of stuff is split into many, many little functions. That sucks, and I have used a toolbar to eliminate this. As I said above, this toolbar adjusts for different calculators to ensure compatibility and power.

6. Multi-package distribution. I intend to package this program in PPG, ASM, and Flash, using rom calls to translate the BASIC commands if possible. However, I have not even begun to look into this, and I have no idea whether it can reasonably be done with such things as expr() within solve(). The initial release will NOT include ASM/Flash versions of the program.

4. All the functions you will ever need. Algebra is NOT a focus of this program, nor is calculus, since these functions already exist in the calculator. Instead, I have covered ALL geometry topics (I went to my text book and I wrote a routine for every single figure, etc. Also included is the ability to determine if two numbers are factors of each other, time calculations (this accounts for AM/PM, not just base 60), a random integer guesser for multi-var equations, and much more.

5. Single program package. All the code is combined in a single program. Most math stuff with any significant amount of stuff is split into many, many little functions. That sucks, and I have used a toolbar to eliminate this. As I said above, this toolbar adjusts for different calculators to ensure compatibility and power.

6. Multi-package distribution. I intend to package this program in PPG, ASM, and Flash, using rom calls to translate the BASIC commands if possible. However, I have not even begun to look into this, and I have no idea whether it can reasonably be done with such things as expr() within solve(). The initial release will NOT include ASM/Flash versions of the program.

So why haven't I released this program yet? It's because I am still carrying out some minor debuging here, and so it is a few weeks away from being published. Unfortunately, my 92+ just broke (it won't even flicker the screen!!!) and I need a claculator with a QWERTY keyboard. Unfortunately, VTI is not the answer because when dealing with a 30,000 line TI-68k Basic program, the BASIC interpreter has trouble, and that cannot be circumvented on VTI. I have asked TI for help on how the interperter flags programs after they have been pre-intrepreted, but they told me the information was confidential. Bummer.

So now you see why I am totally pissed off when you attack TI-Basic. The language doesn't suck, it's the programmers. It takes alot of work to push the language to the limits, and that takes skill. I have spent 2 years trying to write symbolic math for the 83+ with it's basic language. In the end, it ammounted to finding patterns between coeficients of different formulas and the result was a useless set of 59 programs (which tool 6-10 hours apice) that handled one specific formula conversion. Now I have (had it broke) a 92+ and an 89 (which i got for the SAT), both of which amaze me every day.

btw, I do have a website, but it is not my own (although I am an admin there). Fyi I do know html, as well as some C and VB6. I can also understand PHP code, and I am planning to learn how to write it.

btw, sorry for accidental double-post. I had to split the origional post thanks to ticalc's text limit.

Can you say CAS? Useful program, works well, and innovative ideas... but you don't see me throwing arms up about it. Hell, I never even uploaded it. Just take a deep breath and relax...

CAS stands for computer algebra system. it's what the calculator is based on. look, it's a big deal since nothing else has done better. Even Mathematica doesn't have anything nearly as good as the 68k solve() function!

>Even Mathematica doesn't have anything nearly as good as the 68k solve() function!

You _have_ to be joking. The CAS in the TI89 is a toy compared to mathematica.

Last time I checked, the only thing the built in "CAS" on the 83 did was value out an equation, or solved for X. I good CAS (closer to the one on the 89) would simplify, expand, factor, evaluate trig identities, deviate functions... all the good stuff. If you show me how the 83 can do that, then I'll admit I wasted a lot of time making a CAS for those purposes.

You can use www.tiedit.tk , it's a PC-based TI-BASIC editor which can open and save the binary ("tokenized") TI-BASIC format.

1. when you say "compute entire 3D figures" what are you computing? Volume?

2. you are using expr() the way ti intended it to be used (chapter 18). Congratulations for realizing that the output of one function can be maniupulated and used as input to another functions.

5. the gui vs the command line debate again. How easy is it for a user to code their own basic programs that use your code, or is that a no no?

6. the basic commands are all available from c, but coding a c program that way won't get a tremendous speed increase. fyi the name of the call to turn a string into an expression is called push_parse_text() (maybe mispelled)

I do think there are too many BASIC programs. There are a lot of repetitions of programs like Quadratic Formula, and a lot of programs just aren't worth the space they take up. It takes about 30 seconds to load up the TI-83+ BASIC Math Programs, and I have a very fast internet connection. Then I have to sort through almost 2000 files to try to find some good programs, a lot of which get skipped because I'm looking so fast, since most of the files are almost useless.
This is the suggestion I suggest: the ticalc staff should look through all the programs in the archives and take out ones that aren't good. They should encourage users to rate files more often. Finally, they should check the quality of the files an author publishes from now on.

I agree. Something I think that should be done is remove all the programs that do not work or are coded so poorly that they are pointless to play. I know of a few assembly programs that I have downloaded for the TI-86 that just do not work at all and/or are unplayable.

actually, I also agree. That's why I have created the program above. It should outdate all that crap...

unfortunately, I am still working on getting a new calculator :(

the program is practically finished, except for a few typos and some more routines have to be embedded into the main program. it should be released a few days after i get my new calc.