|
|
|
|
|
|
by Greg_hamel
1508 days ago
|
|
|
> […] the calculator uses Reverse Polish Notation (RPN) to input calculations, simplifying the hardware design but making it more difficult to use. I would argue against this statement which I’ve seen many times. RPN is not more difficult to use, it is simply different from what people have been using for the last few decades. Not being used to an human-machine interface and having to learn it should not be confused with difficulty of use. Someone used to vi/vim has all the ease in the world to use it, but it might take a newcomer more time to adapt. RPN has a very natural data waterfall flow, especially when stacks can grow to multiple levels. Of course you don’t have a direct view of it, but it becomes second nature. You simply know what that the higher value in the stack is your previous result. |
|
|
Newer calculators have "natural textbook entry", where they show the equation in mathematical notation as you enter it, so no stack required in your head. The entry method (shown linearly) for division is: <divide> numerator <down> denominator <right>. The keystroke count is lower than it would appear because you can leave out all of the right-most cursor keystrokes.
The method could be further generalized to eliminate the need to know about precedence on entry. For example ab(c+d+e)*f could be: <mul> a <next> b <add> c <next> d <next> e <done> <next> f. Visually it could show the order of operations either with precedence, or in some new way (perhaps text size changes to indicate order).
It's interesting to think how programming languages could look in the post-teletype era.