| > Superior in what way? When it comes to programming, almost every way. Try getting a job if you only know how to program a TI-84. Now compare that with knowing python or JavaScript. > It’s far easier to write a minimal program on a TI calculator like the TI89. Yes, and far harder to write anything but a minimal program. Completely impossible to write anything in a commercially used language. > No App Store account or Internet required. So what? These are widely available. > It’s included in every calculator for free, with function integration into the hard (ie easier to be precise while typing) keyboard. So what? You can’t write anything resembling a modern program. This is a way in which the calculator is incapable of serving as a general purpose computer, not an advantage. I’m not against calculators. I learned to program on my father’s TI, long before I had access to computers. I still like keystroke programming an HP-15C for repetitive calculations today. But there is no way that is better than Pythonista or the ilk for programming in general. |
You're approaching this as if the comment was an opinion about the feasibility of doing commercial software development instead of what it was, which is a statement about HCI and the "implicit step zero" of software creation on today's commodity computing devices. Another way to put it is that this is a discussion about friction, and the original comment was specifically an observation about static friction, and you're talking about kinetic friction—while also insisting that the original comment is wrong because you want the subject to be the latter and not the former. It's a weird, overly hostile, and uncharitable way to interpret the other person's words.
The original comment as it stands is fine. Don't expect to be able to interpret it on different terms than the way it was meant to be understood.