Results
|
Choice
|
Votes
|
|
Percent
|
I agree totally with ticalc.org, all programs I had in mind have been featured.
|
16
|
9.8%
|
|
Most of them.
|
109
|
66.9%
|
|
Almost never.
|
21
|
12.9%
|
|
ticalc.org's opinion is invalid.
|
17
|
10.4%
|
|
|
Integrity of Staff
|
Philip Sugimoto
|
As previously mentioned there is no such thing as an unbiased choice. However remember that we don't take the staff's decision for absolute truth. The longer you have been down-loading programs the better a sense of individual author's style and quality. This will lead you to agree or disagree to some extent with the staff's decision. What matters is that a featured program tells the first-time, new or casual user that this is a quality program.
So in conclusion we need to make sure that the programs that are featured are quality programs that we as a community are proud of.
If there are other quality programs then they should be listed. Keeping a running list of quality programs (including updating when a better version or such) would allow people who only come occasionally to sort through the hundreds of programs to find some good ones. Later when they are hooked, then they can download and try every game in their respective sections.
|
Reply to this comment
|
19 January 2001, 14:51 GMT
|
|
Re: How do you feel about the programs featured by ticalc.org?
|
dishsoap
|
I like the big selection of programs. But I'm wondering if it is possible to make a program that you could like network two 89's together. To like control one with the other. I dont know if thats possible to do, but if it is that would be the coolest program.
|
Reply to this comment
|
19 January 2001, 17:53 GMT
|
|
Re: How do you feel about the programs featured by ticalc.org?
|
ComputerWiz
(Web Page)
|
there was no.. "ticalc.org's opinion sucks cause they are biased" thats unfortunate
|
Reply to this comment
|
19 January 2001, 21:52 GMT
|
|
Re: How do you feel about the programs featured by ticalc.org?
|
Vector
|
I believe that the real issue here is the QUALITY of the programs. While ticalc is a great portal and I do not suggest that the featured programs are (generally speaking) of an inferior quality, I do say that if every submitted program were at least tested for functionality (mind you I am not saying efficiency)it would solve a variety of problems.
To begin with we would be spared of the junk that does not even run. I believe everyone knows the frustration of running a promising program and having it violently crash your calculator. The other day I myself had an 89 asm program "blue-screen" (official slang of the Vector - applies to anything that is even remotely digital) my calculator to the point of resetting the memory.
Secondly, as many of us well know, people are trying to get featured for years, but to no avail. Getting rid of the programs that were clearly not intended to run by their authors would both allow those who were previously frustrated to share their programs and would provide us with a greater variety of programs of better quality.
Lastly, the quality of the programs will indubitably benefit the great and <cough> digital calculator community!
A closing note: I have only briefly mentioned the efficiency of the featured programs in the above discussion, but I have changed my mind now and would like to expound briefly on this exciting topic. First of all, let's make a distinction between an asm a basic program. Asm programs are (generally) written by more skillful programmers simply because very few people can program in asm and op codes as compared to the basic crowd. That in addition to the fact that asm runs many times faster than basic makes efficiency less of a concern in case of the asm programs.
The exact opposite is true of the basic programs: they are (generally) quite badly written (sometimes with the gotos! (not that I have anything against the venerable and romantic goto command, but, you have to agree with me, loops are a MUCH better choice for ti-basic)). Plus, let us not forget such opuses as the factor( and isPrime( functions for the 89, which are actually built-in and the ridiculous numerical integration "packet" (I am not making this up) for the 86 which was "guaranteed to be the world's best choice for the AP" because of "the simplicity and ancient purity of the interface". I do admit the interface joke was very appealing - what can be simpler than to pull a battery out?
The Self-Appointed Spokesman
for the
Calculator Community (CC)
|
Reply to this comment
|
20 January 2001, 00:08 GMT
|
|
1 2 3 4 5
You can change the number of comments per page in Account Preferences.
|