From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.3 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RDNS_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: (qmail 5435 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2020 16:41:25 -0000 Received-SPF: pass (minnie.tuhs.org: domain of minnie.tuhs.org designates 45.79.103.53 as permitted sender) receiver=inbox.vuxu.org; client-ip=45.79.103.53 envelope-from= Received: from unknown (HELO minnie.tuhs.org) (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTP; 20 Mar 2020 16:41:25 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id C146D9D54E; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 02:41:21 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 617A09CD88; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 02:40:57 +1000 (AEST) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 9224C9CD83; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 02:40:55 +1000 (AEST) Received: from fourwinds.com (fourwinds.com [63.64.179.162]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C03D9CD73 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 02:40:54 +1000 (AEST) Received: from darkstar.fourwinds.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fourwinds.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 02KGercE470799 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 09:40:53 -0700 Received: from darkstar.fourwinds.com (jon@localhost) by darkstar.fourwinds.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) with ESMTP id 02KGerlG470796 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 09:40:53 -0700 Message-Id: <202003201640.02KGerlG470796@darkstar.fourwinds.com> From: Jon Steinhart To: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org In-reply-to: <211b9d54-573c-05d3-2c60-e15a9fc0b86b@tnetconsulting.net> References: <202003132331.02DNVaxN061501@tahoe.cs.Dartmouth.EDU> <7ec47fd97b1a3d383ffed428f21f5287@firemail.cc> <6D9CA6C2-BDF2-4BCA-9503-0F8415C594C9@guertin.net> <211b9d54-573c-05d3-2c60-e15a9fc0b86b@tnetconsulting.net> Comments: In-reply-to Grant Taylor via TUHS message dated "Fri, 20 Mar 2020 09:40:50 -0600." MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <470794.1584722453.1@darkstar.fourwinds.com> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 09:40:53 -0700 X-JON-SPAM: local delivery Subject: Re: [TUHS] The most surprising Unix programs X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" Grant Taylor via TUHS writes: > > I'm asking from a point of genuine curiosity. I've heard many say that > RPN is easier, or that it takes fewer keys, or otherwise superior to > infix notation. But many of the conversations end up somewhat devolving > > into religious like comments about preferences, despite starting with > honest open-minded intentions. (I hope this one doesn't similarly devolve.) I've been a RPN fan since I got my first HP-45 when I was a sophomore in college. I see the difference between RPN and algebraic notation as follows. RPN is much easier when thinking on the fly; algabraic is much easier when copying equations off of a page. I think that this mainly comes from not having to worry about parentheses with RPN. Moving things around on the stack when having to rearrange is easier than having to move things in and out of registers. Jon