Why not just create a new OS for the calculators. I'm not talking about a shell or add-on. I'm talking about full out new ROM OS. A new OS could have new language and be faster. New functions could even be added. The only problem I see with my idea is that it would take an extremely long time to develop.

The main thing stopping me is my lack of technology to do just that. I can't even download pedroM because TiLP doesn't work because I have a USB cable.

The first step to doing this is to make sure that when the calculator reboots under the new operating system, it can safely be hooked up to the computer and safely be reverted back to the TI operating system (or another custom one). The biggest danger I see is the possibility of writing a messed up operating system that causes your calculator to become entirely unusable (If I'm not mistaken, that's possible).

Basic overall is not a program you would use for games obvuously. I wrote for my 85 then 86 so I know that if the trend continues basic will evolve and maybe into something better :/. The only real use of basic is for making math programs quickly, that remembers all of you formulas for you :).

(BASIC-86= Top Grades Geometry/Trig)

TI-BASIC does not need to be replaced. Sure, it would be nice to have something on-board that would run faster, but the simplicity of the language is mainly what I think is so good about it. It is a language that you can truly experiment around with and learn programming with without doing any possible damage to your calculator. TI-BASIC was my first language (only 2 years ago) and now I've already learned Visual Basic, some C++, some NQC, HTML and JavaScript editing (nobody ever taught me and I only mess around with it occasionally for fun so I see no need to officially learn it), and my next stop is MASM. So, though TI-BASIC itself is limited, it leads to much larger stuff and sets a good foundation for beginning programmers.
The main thing I think TI should work on right now is the quality of their calculators hardware-wise. I am extremely disappointed with the TI-84 SE. My brother won one in a national math competition, so that is the only reason why anyone in my family would have one in their possesion. Sure, some of the features are nice (USB port, internal clock, library and clock usage in programming), but the calculator is slower than my TI-83 plus in some aspects! (I've done tests to prove that) That calculator is all looks. TI basically put too much memory in a calculator and gave it a processor that can't handle it at a manageable speed and it's disappointing. They need to spend their efforts right now on developing their hardware to work better rather than their programming utilities and languages, etc.
Anyhow, I'm done rambling. Sorry if my views have offended anyone.

I agree.
We Need something so easy like TI-Basic but faster than it.

If you are a math student like myself, you realy are not looking for some elaborate programming platform anyhow. BASIC does it for me because, let's face it... what is the point of all the glits and glam when all that I need to do is solve 3x+2y-5=3,3x+3y+0=4,3x+4y-5=2 as an augmented matrix. If you want to program games and such, then yes I do agree that C and C++ are better platforms... but all I need to do is get my homework done.

Great article!

BASIC has been around for a while and it is known for being easy to read. However, it gets worse the more complicated the program is with all nested GOTOs and, on the calculator, no indented rows or anything to remind you of where you are.

If you simply want to print a comparison between two tables BASIC is fine. But when it comes to actually doing something fast and large it's borked... BASIC is GREAT for calculators though; you can only see 8 rows and 16 columns on the TI-83. I'd go completely nuts if I were to write C with a workspace that small, but with BASIC it's fine.

If I had the brains to write a language (for a calculator) I'd go with a really simple one: C-like syntax (with functions loadable from external files), five data types (int, float and string), single dimensional arrays (you really don't need more - you can always simulate multidimensional arrays) and maybe most importantly: parametric polymorphism. The float 128.5 would be read by a string fuction as the string "128.5". By an int function it'd be read as 129 etc. A string fed into an int or float would always be 0. You could overload any function.

This would cover the most basic things, but still it'd be overly complicated.

I say stick with BASIC if you want to program with the calculator - it isn't made for C# .NET or whatever.

I'd like to see an on-calc implementation off Small-C though, but it'd never replace BASIC.

I'd really appreciate an upgrade of TI-Basic. I'm just starting to learn asm but the calculator is a lot more convenient. I spend a lot of time programming in school during boring classes, which I couldn't do with asm. It would definitely be nice to get a faster, more powerful version.

I also think that a new TI-Basic should allow you to type commands insted of having to find them in the catalog. It is kind of annoying, and if you have a calc-compatible keyboard it would be a lot faster just to type.

So, I have a couple more things to say on this topic. First off, it would be nice to have a more powerful language, like maybe if they added in better string manipulation tools. Also better calculator communication tools; I just use Omnicalc's lately because I can't get the built in ones to work how I want them to. I've been trying to make an IM program that would have been easier to write if I could have had a singular program to put on both calculators rather "program1" and "program2", like is usually done, and have the calculators automatically detect the place that each is in so they will be able to update at proper times and use different variables. Anyhow, I've run into a lot of bugs and realized that it's nearly impossible to do such a thing. I got pretty dang close, but I still have to say I'm aching for a more powerful language. For one, I need to learn ASM, but I can't find a compiler and Documentation that match or just a compiler that uses a Silver USB link cable. I want to learn to program in Hex on my calculator, but I don't know anywhere where I can get such tools. Can anybody help me?
Anyhow, as I was saying, the string manipulation is the pits, too. Maybe I'm just spoiled from using such languages as Visual Basic and similar ones, but there are only 3 or 4 string manipulation comands that I know of on the calculator. This is one feature that would especially be nice.

So, now I have to represent the other side.
TI-BASIC is still very useful. I write all kinds of programs for Calculus class that have quite a bit of use in the end and make tedious calculator calculations faster. What's more, when you get the hang of TI-BASIC, such programs can be written very efficiently and in a matter of minutes. It still is a useful language, and sometimes I would rather have a faster speed in writing the program than execution. I don't know.

LOL, you're gonna learn hex? that'll take a while memorizing what all the asm commands translate to.

As for compiling stuff (you've probably heard this before) get TASM. It's DOS and I know it's hard for beginners, but just take the "Learn ASM in 28 days" tutorial, and it'll teach you how to set up and use TASM. That's what I did, and it worked great. Now I'm writing a VB program that will let you edit+compile your programs directly into a calc program file, and optionally launch an emulator.

man, that was a long, boring LECTURE. There is nothing wrong with basic, and nothing wrong with assembly; quit whining

totally right, all languages have advantages and disadvantages, and BASIC is cool.
so yeah, quit whining.

I love TI-BASIc because I can program anywhere. I've never been able to learn asm so I just program on the way to school or during lunch. But I do wish you could do more with basic. Perhaps TI can include Exec( for calling functions just like on the 68k calcs.

P.S. Just so you know, I have a TI-83+ and an 84+SE

We know we can compile ASM programs. We know that the calculator, whatever it is, can convert TI-BASIC into machine code or ASM or whatever it translates it into.

So if the calculator is able to convert, how come we aren't able. I'm no nerd in programming (i'm lost in ASM's basics), but I have a suggestion:

Why don'T we do a compiler for TI-BASIC?

We write in TI-BASIC in our computer. We use the compiler. Poof! Translated in whatever the calculator reads (hexa, asm, or binary) and everyone is happy: esay to do, fast, powerful.

The only problem is to actually program the compiler, which would need really good people... and a lot of time!

There are a couple of compilers out there that convert basic > asm, but none of them seem to work :(

Plus, (correct me if i'm wrong) if you convert the basic directly to asm with no optimization and stuff, it would run at exactly the same speed as the basic did originally. I guess if you had it on a computer you could edit the ASM and stuff, but the program's gonna be huge and run slow anyway, so theres really no point in adding extra asm features.

But if you could translate it in asm by a BASIC->ASM converter (like the one the calc uses), and then that you could open that asm program and then optimize it and get all the useless stuff out.

Also, on the calculator, the thing that takes most time is probably the converter and not the useless asm code...

Well said, the future is basic compilers, I am using 8051 micro BASCOM 8051 basic type compiler, it's totaly excellent and very easy to use.
Whats needed is a TI basic compiler that codes and compiles on a PC down to machine code(hex dump), this dump can then be downloaded to your calc. and run. The problem with c is that it is unnecessary hard to learn, in fact I would say it requires total professional tuition in order to become proefficient.
Darren

Yea, it's time get a new language. It's just that asm is too much of a hassel to learn for alot of programmers, and Ti-basic only takes a day. I would be fine programming n C++ or C. Basically its just the speed. The calculator itself is just too weak.

I believe that replacing BASIC wouldn't be a wise thing to do. I mean, it's always available and it's very versatile. *lightbulb clicks on in head*

NEW IDEA!!! *runs off*

Let me rephrase my previous comment. BASIC shouldn't be replaced. It should be improved.

Why? Is TI-BASIC really all that bad? I mean, it is a freaking calculator for cyring out loud, and if you want it to run faster than learn C or C++. Of course the language wasn't built for speed, it was just built for the user to optimize his/her calculator and make more features available that weren't in the original planning. Leave BASIC alone, sure you can optimize it, but it was made for calculators not for computers. The whole point is to add more features to your calculator. And who cares about graphics? I mean how much do you want from 94x62 black and white pixels?

Oh yeah, and asm is just too darn confusing for most people that use BASIC, and that's why they use it and like it, because it is easy. You can learn and master BASIC in a week, but asm is almost as hard to master as it is to gain a mediocre knowledge of C or C++ in my opinion.

Let me rephrase that last comment, asm is freaking hard and so is C/C++ for some of us (me included) so BASIC is easy for me and 98% of Calc owners, where other languages are difficult for us to digest.