Re: Why are TI Calcs so inferior?
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Why are TI Calcs so inferior?
This discussion is absoloutely fascinating to me.
The main point that has been raised is that the TI-92, in order to
justify it's $170 price tag, has to be a more powerful machine. It may
be technically possible, but why? Simply satisfying a
never-ending-desire for "performance" is a strange reason.
I am a science student, and have a lot of experience with Maple. I have
to say that the Ti-92 competes VERY fairly with it. Considering I am
running Maple on a $12,000 workstation, I have to say that my Ti92 is
much more cost-effective.
In fact, my Ti92 can solve some integrals that Maple simply can not,
(although to be fair, maple can solve -- and I say that loosely -- a
branch of equations that my ti92 cannot, however it is rather ugly.)
The fact of the matter is, the ti92 is more than enough power, at a very
reasonable cost.
About the programming language for the TI92: The so-called TI92 basic
is exactly what is needed for a calculator. Although C and ML are nice
languages, they are not very good at computing with out a lot of
extension to the library routines. They are also a lot harder to
compile, (although TI92 basic is interpreted.) Therefor, Buggy, a buggy
calculator is useless.
And finally, if you are in high school, you don't really need anything
in the TI9x or TI8x range. I believe that most high schools do a very
poor job of training people rigerously today. Qualitative approaches
are good, but it all should be done with good old paper and pencil, and
when you've truly mastered it, you can go on.
See-ya
nick
References: