From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 13:43:41 -0600 Subject: [COFF] The most surprising Unix programs In-Reply-To: References: <202003132331.02DNVaxN061501@tahoe.cs.Dartmouth.EDU> <7ec47fd97b1a3d383ffed428f21f5287@firemail.cc> <6D9CA6C2-BDF2-4BCA-9503-0F8415C594C9@guertin.net> <211b9d54-573c-05d3-2c60-e15a9fc0b86b@tnetconsulting.net> <202003201640.02KGerlG470796@darkstar.fourwinds.com> <0b0d0ba3-7eae-a844-cc9a-ae542edb302b@tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: On 3/20/20 1:31 PM, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo via COFF wrote: > That sounds like a good summary. I started out on TI programmable > calculators (my first was a TI-57 that I still have, and that still > works), but moved on to RPN with an HP41CV. Today, I find entering > calculations into an RPN calculator simpler, because I naturally > think in terms of the stack. With a traditional calculator, I have > to look at the (possibly just mentally imaged) formula that I need to > evaluate, and type it in character by character, whereas the RPN > calculator lets me think about the calculation to be performed, and > just enter that. Thank you for the comments gentlemen. What I think I'm hearing you say is that with RPN you were shouldering part of the computational load based on how you were entering things so that they aligned as necessary with the stack. Conversely, you were simply "plug and chug" (as I've heard elsewhere). Meaning you entered the equation / formula and were largely hands off from the calculation. Is that accurate? -- Grant. . . . unix || die -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4013 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: