Re: RPN (was Re: TI-83 )

To: CALC-TI@LISTS.PPP.TI.COM
Subject: Re: RPN (was Re: TI-83 )
From: Alex M <alexmacphee@NETSCAPE.NET>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 11:34:09 +0100
Organization: BT Labs, Martlesham Heath, Ipswich, UK
References: <199904291358.GAA00289@www1.xoommail.com>
Reply-To: Alex M <alexmacphee@NETSCAPE.NET>
Xref: paladin.american.edu bit.listserv.calc-ti:29043

Miroslaw J. Wiechowski <mjwiech@XOOMMAIL.COM> wrote in message
199904291358.GAA00289@www1.xoommail.com">news:199904291358.GAA00289@www1.xoommail.com...
> Tom Lake wrote:

> RPN allows to create slightly more compact programs. It was VERY
> important in those times, when calculators boasted... 49 program
> steps in memory and the language reminded of assembly.

If you are thinking of a calculator like the HP25, which had 49 program
steps (or was it 50, numbered 00-49?), there may be something in what you
say, but as I recall, the efficiency of the HP programmables in those days
over the TI programmable lay more in how much could be stored in a step,
rather than the use of RPN (although undoubtedly that contributed).  On an
HP calculator, the instruction GOTO 25 was stored in one step, whereas on
the equivalent TI calculators, this required three steps, storing as [GOTO]
[2] [5].  Similarly, I think the functions on the HP that required two
keystrokes, like  [f][sin] (or whatever) occupied one program step, whereas
on the TI, I seem to recall it took two program steps.

Alex

******************************************************************
* To UNSUBSCRIBE, send an email TO: listserv@lists.ppp.ti.com
* with a message (not the subject) that reads SIGNOFF CALC-TI
*
* Archives at http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/calc-ti.html
******************************************************************

References:

Re: RPN (was Re: TI-83 )

From: "Miroslaw J. Wiechowski" <mjwiech@xoommail.com>