Survey posted 2005-09-20 14:45 by Jon.

Contribute ideas to surveys by sending a mail to survey@ticalc.org.

"I don't have a calculator with a clock"

Technically, it has a clock (for the CPU) but not a real-time clock. Also, I once found a program for the TI-86 that shows a clock at the bottom of the screen, but it was hopelessly inaccurate (because, again, the calc doesn't have an RTC), so I don't use a calculator for a watch.

I don't wear my wristwatch. When I want to know the time, I pull out my trusty ti89 titanium out of my pocket and turn it on (thank goodness for ISL!). I didn't see a choice for using only calculator for time...

=P, woops, i'm silly. I didn't see the yes option.

My clock always reads insane hours of the morning in the middle of thre afternoon, due to the fact that it's simply not worth setting the clock every time my Titanium crashes!

that's odd. my Titanium crashes very often (especially when I randomly decide to soft reset it), but it has been a long time since my clock has been reset back to year 1997...
has some program changed my calculator so the clock doesn't reset? (i have a feeling that hw3patch's behind all of this)

By reset, I mean crash. :)

I don't think so. the calculator stores a spesific value whith the time so when the OS reinits it checks the value and if it is correct then it does not reinit the clock.

ISL works on your 89Ti?

if you use ghostbuster to patch it, ISL will work. However I think the patched ISL makes text boxes a bit glitchy when the cursor is placed in them.

i added a clock to my program for that exact reason..

that is exactly what I do :)

If I want to know what time it is, if I'm not wearing my watch, if there's no clock in the room I'm in, or (if I'm outside) there's not enough sunlight to predict the time based on my shadow, if I don't have my cell phone or PDA with me, if no one around me has any means of telling time (or if I'm alone), and if I even have my TI-89 with me, then yes, I would use it's clock.

The point: I don't use my calculator to tell time.

Well, if you would use it in that situation, then I would think that you should vote "switch between the two" because you DO use the calculator in at least one case.... ;)

I haven't used my calc to tell time yet, though ;)

Where is the option:

Yes, I don't have a watch?

..which can be simplified to.. you guessed it!:

Yes!

Does the titanium come with a clock or is there a program for it?

One other thing, is there one for the TI-83+ SE????

no built in clocks for TI-83+SE, and programs are hopeless inaccurate that emulate clocks because speed depends on RAM.

I got it down to a few seconds loss per hour once, but obviously any change to free ram throws it off drastically.

Can the ti 83 + have a clock on it if so can it be in BASIC if so can you post the code.

No, unless you can accurately predict the time between two regularly recurring events over and over. Nobody has figured out how to do that.

ClrHome
Lbl A
Input"",A
A+2->A
Disp A
Goto A

OT, but easy.

Type an undefined variable name or an invalid expression.

Anyway, an external device sending a signal into the link port every x seconds could be used if you didn't need a link port (i.e., if you had an 84) and if you could either write a TSR (I don't know if it could be done on a Z80), or didn't mind having what amounted to a $150 clock, or had a different OS that supported background programs.

GOTOS ARE EVIL!! KILL THEM ALL! and that code doesn't keep time right

It was not a timer

>> Can the ti 83 + have a clock on it if so can it be in BASIC if so can you post the code.

what was the point of that code then?

That's why it's called the "Nothing to do with clocks program".

They really are...change that code to this (it will save a LITTLE bit of memory anyway):
ClrHome
While 1
Input "",A
A+2->A
Disp A
End

And, unless you're TRYING to eat time, you could get rid of the "A+2->A" by changing the display part to "Disp A+2"...

What's with line 3?

>Input "",A

So, basically, you're putting in some arbitrary number and getting fed back that number+2? How does that even come close to telling time?

it does not it is funny to give to friends

You run the program on a friend's calc, and then when they use their calc (if it hasn't been turned off) then when they type in, for example, 5*5, it will say 27...

It is funner on tests beacause they will get the wrong answer.

Methinks you don't have many friends.

ok juust random people that want to borrow your calc

Except that eventually they'll enter something like "2+3", get the wrong answer, and realize what's going on.

But it would be funny to use the start up app and that program so even if they turn it off the program will just start and run.

I'd like to see an event-based program without them.

Remember, the point is not to make it easy on us but to make the program work well.

Actually, the point of avoiding goto's _is_ to make it easy for us to make a program work correctly, because using goto's a lot generally causes a program to turn into hard-to-maintain spaghetti.

It's trivial to write an event-based program without using goto's. You'd typically use an event dispatcher, which usually uses just pointers to functions.

If you're referring to event-based programs in TI-BASIC, you're probably right. That version of BASIC (all versions of BASIC, actually) is pretty much braindead, so it kind of needs "GOTO" statements to do anything useful. I'm talking about "real" languages like C or Java, in which it's very easy to avoid using "goto" in almost every case.

Sorry. I was talking about TI-BASIC.

My point is that there is no situation in which you can decrease functionality of any sort in order to make it easier on you to write the program or to maintain or update it.

I also do not see the difference in readability between internally-defined functions and gotos.

>>My point is that there is no situation in which you can decrease functionality of any sort in order to make it easier on you to write the program or to maintain or update it.

"can" obviously meaning "should," sorry...

Here's one example:

0->sum
0->i
Lbl A
i+1->i
sum+i->sum
If i<=10
Goto A
Disp sum

The same program using a for loop:
0->sum
For i,1,10
sum+i->sum
End
Disp sum

The second program is MUCH easier to understand...

That's a good example, and not using "goto" didn't decrease functionality of the program.

There's a place to use them and a place not to.

I could post an entire mouse-based toolbar handler but I won't; here goes:

Lbl start
(C) Display toolbar
80->x (C) Mouse horizontal position
50->y (C) Mouse vertical position
system\zzmouse() (C) Generic mouse program
If ms[3]>267 and ms[3]<276 Then
Goto tb
ElseIf ms[3]=264 Then
Goto end
ElseIf ms[3]=13 and ms[2]<16 Then
Goto tb
Else
Goto main
EndIf
Lbl tb
(C) Toolbar handler; basically, which button was clicked on. This depends on a call to flib to determine the width of the string in small font on the 89 plus either 1 or 2, I forget.
Goto start
Lbl main
(C) This is where you put the main program; e.g., the keyboard reading and text display code for a text editor
Goto start
Lbl end
system\hsr() (C) Restore home screen
Return