NO!

I agree with some points the author makes: TI Basic is woefully slow and produces inadequate graphics. Any game requiring the getkey function usually runs so slow it is worthless. However, TI Basic is an excellent "first language". Unlike C and Asm, Basic can be programmed and run using only the calculator; no link cable and TI Graphlink required. It is easy to understand, and is great for text-only games.

i have seen some interesting points, i have written a few simple ti basic programs, the problem being there is a difference in compatibility between models, such as the 82 and the 86, not to mention a limited amount of memory, however a solution would be to create a cross compiler that compiles c or c++ code on a computer for the ti calclulator then use the graph link to xfer it, not the best solution but it could be used for any model (simply make the compiler to take the target model as a switch in the command and generate the proper asm code) that way it could also be debugged BEFORE transfering to the calculator

It's November 2008, and this is still an issue. I understand both sides of the arguement, and think TI needs to make a comprimise. Keep the average calculator as it is, but create a series of programming calculators that has the capibilites of the basic (no pun intended) graphing calculators, while offering more programming options, including a possible new language, good (posibly color) screen resolution, more BASIC commands, and various other inprovements. That way, the strictly math oriented could have the standard type, and the programmers could have one more oriented tword their tastes, while still being able to use it for math.

TI-Basic does have its limitations, but it is good for beginners. And, with the latest addition of Axe to the available languages, it eliminates the need for assembly.

For those of you who don't know, Axe Parser is an on-calc assembler. It allows you to create Axe source files on your calculator, using the OS program editor. Once you are done, you open the Axe app and compile your program. Axe language has a syntax very similar to TI-Basic, but it compiles into an assembly executable. It is a beta at the moment and currently supports basic system commands, multiple keypresses, contrast, access to pointers, free RAM areas, and all TI-OS variables. It also allows direct I/O linking. Axe can also compile to an APP, but that involves glitchy code and should be avoided. Details can be found at www.omnimaga.org.

Actually it is time to cancel this site. Can someone tell me what the purpose is of a site where there is little or no discussion going on. Yeh, sure, nspire is a bummer and that is the only new product out of TI in many years, but how about some discussion on Casio stuff. Like what would it take for you to switch to the new Casio Prizm with its bright color, yes I said "color" screen?

That is a post responding to an initial post in 2005 and I bet there will be no response. Looks like everyone that used to post on this site died and left this automatic software behind. Ge-i-s-h!

The thing is that TI Basic is good for beginners yet it is not good for those who expect fucking high damn speeds.

A Basic might look like A->9 while asm might be ld 0,A

Asm nearly always deletes thy RAM when you type one char wrong and it's really painstaking to have to redownload all of the crap

BASIC and C are different languages intended to solve different kinds of problems. BASIC can hit more entry level new programmers because it is easy to learn. The expression of C does not reflect the problem domain clearly because C is a system-level language. Only BASIC can express that.

Is this a necropost?

If TI BASIC was replaced, we wouldn't be able to play games in class (I don't) and Ticalc would lose most of its files.

i think its a real good

Actually it is time to cancel this site. Can someone tell me what the purpose is of a site where there is little or no discussion going on. Yeh, sure, nspire is a bummer and that is the only new product out of TI in many years, but how about some discussion on Casio stuff. Like what would it take for you to switch to the new Casio Prizm with its bright color, yes I said "color" screen?

You apparently haven't discovered the file archives. :-) You'd take down the entire program archives and all the other information on this site just because someone hasn't responded to a 16-year-old news post that long since ran its course?

i have seen some interesting points, i have written a few simple ti basic programs, the problem being there is a difference in compatibility between models, such as the 82 and the 86, not to mention a limited amount of memory, however a solution would be to create a cross compiler that compiles c or c++ code on a computer for the ti calclulator then use the graph link to xfer it, not the best solution but it could be used for any model (simply make the compiler to take the target model as a switch in the command and generate the proper asm code) that way it could also be debugged BEFORE transfering to the calculator

We often remove comments that stray from these guidelines. We do this not to "censor" your feedback, but to keep replies on-topic. Other users want to read replies relevant to a particular article, and general discussion should be kept to other areas

I agree with some points the author makes: TI Basic is woefully slow and produces inadequate graphics. Any game requiring the getkey function usually runs so slow it is worthless. However, TI Basic is an excellent "first language". Unlike C and Asm, Basic can be programmed and run using only the calculator; no link cable and TI Graphlink required. It is easy to understand, and is great for text-only games.

I totally agree. Basic is a very good starting language and after all this is a calculator we are talking about.
All my programming when my friend showed me a loop that no buttons(except the on) would stop it.
Because of that I now program in many other languages(c, c++) and script with torque.
Anyways its a calculator, we dont need to do mass programs and games and stuff, I have made games and programs and yes they could run faster but other than that the language is fine.
If you want to do ASM or C or w/e do it on a computer.
The main purpose I think of programs is for making the program solve equations, etc.
The calculator does not need to become a portable computer(although that would be nice)
If you are that into programming on a calculator DO IT ON A COMPUTER!

Another major change to such a new language is in the area of variables. There is no method within TI-BASIC to store a reference to another variable. Therefore any reference variables will necessarily be local to the interpreted program. Such a language, however, would still need to provide easy access to variables from TI-BASIC. This means that any variables that are to use the additional features of this language will need to be declared within the program. If this is the case, it allows for a few other enhancements to the language. One potential enhancement is the concept of aggregate data types.

It's November 2008, and this is still an issue. I understand both sides of the arguement, and think TI needs to make a comprimise. Keep the average calculator as it is, but create a series of programming calculators that has the capibilites of the basic (no pun intended) graphing calculators, while offering more programming options, including a possible new language, good (posibly color) screen resolution, more BASIC commands, and various other inprovements. That way, the strictly math oriented could have the standard type, and the programmers could have one more oriented tword their tastes, while still being able to use it for math.

Well, the 89/V200 series was the closest you could get to a “programmer's” calculator compromise on the TI side. The BASIC language on those was far ahead of what the 83+/84+ family ever offered. But then I guess they decided the real market was the educational sector, not professional users, and so TI went in the direction of designing calculators for classrooms and standardized testing, which doesn't care for advanced programming but rather teacher and administrator control over what the students are allowed to do on the devices and when.

Hewlett Packard used to offer the 48g/49g/50g series, the latter especially of which was practically a programmer's dream: extensive user customizability; a built-in development tool/debugger for not just the user language but the system language and ASM as well; and a built-in SD card slot for easy backup/transfer of data. But since the 50g was built upon legacy hardware and software of the previous models, its specs were somewhat limited by today's standards.

After the discontinuation of the 50g, that left the HP Prime, which does have a color LCD and is probably the most powerful calculator model currently on the market in terms of performance. Built-in programming is decently powerful, though it doesn't officially allow native code execution. But it's also had to appease the educational sector, which means no IR, no SD, and no sound. I'd say this is probably the best compromise still available today if you're willing to go non-TI.

There sadly doesn't really seem to be such a big market for “advanced programmer” calculators anymore, so it's no longer a priority with calculator makers. It seems those users have since turned to other devices.

YES! The TI Basic has GOT TO GO!!!!!! Newer calculators have far better calculationing abilities and they look really cool. On the newest TI-84, you can play Fortnite and hit the griddy. CHAO!