Thanks for the tip on the HP32 calculator!

Bob, I'm sure you can see by now that this has all the trappings of a religious war. Sort of like arguing about word processing programs used to be before MS completely took over.

Of course, you AE folks are just plain wrong headed!

Steve Smith

You may have run into RPN advocates like that.

But RPN really is better, at least for the way some people think. I own several RPN and several algebraic calculators, and have for decades. I use both. I normally use them in private, with nobody watching me, and thus no one to notice which one I'm using. If I'm doing a simple computation with one or two operations, I don't much care which type I use. But for longer calculations, I always prefer RPN. It just fits the way I do calculations mentally.

The problem with AE is that you have to enter the expression in the order it's written, complete with appropriate parentheses. For complex expressions, that means I need to *write it down before starting*. And I do not normally do that. I calculate by performing a series of smaller operations in their natural order, and an RPN calculator allows me to run the calculator in parallel with my head, seeing intermediate results as I go along. I don't start with an expression for the answer, and I don't end up with one - I just work out the process of deriving the answer from the inputs as I go.

So why do I own AE calculators as well? They're ubiquitous and cheap. I'd rather lose a $10 calculator than a $100 one, so I carry the former in my knapsack and that's what I have at work. The calculator on my Palm supports both input modes, but I leave it set to RPN all the time.

Dave

That seems backward to me. RPN is like writing a CNC program that carries out operations in the same sequence and with the same feeds and speeds as the way you'd naturally do the work manually. It's like "learn mode", where you do something manually and the machine records that for later use.

AE is like entering the dimensions of the part and letting the computer figure out a sequence of operations that will make it. If it works, and is fast, and gives good surface finish, great. But if something is wrong and you have to fix it, you're worse off. You may not know where it went wrong unless you look at what it did step by step.

Dave

You just gotta be kidding. I've never met anybody I couldn't explain RPN to in a matter of a few seconds. After that, its just a matter of a few minutes practice.

Fitch

Bet I've taught 30 or 40 over the years as well. Don't recall ANY of mine that didn't like it... or any having much trouble learning.

Erik

Looke here - The Architecture Cad Man is Back! - Bet the Cad Digger needed work :-)

Martin

I couldn't help myself; I bought the HP 33S at a local electronic store this week.

It has a few features not in the HP32S, but I kind of liked the simpler HP32S interface. But now you've get the capability to do calculations with exponents up to 500. I'm sure that will come in handy when I want to figure out how many universes could be filled with ping pong balls.

The second LCD line is nice to see what is in the previous stack. On the downside, the keyboard is _way_ busier than the 32S and will take some getting used to. And they moved the ENTER key to the bottom right and it is the same size as the other keys. But this would probably only bother someone who had been using other HP calculators for the last 20 years.

-Aaron

HP was never big on consistency. If you've ever worked with HP test gear you may get a chuckle out of this.

Ned Simmons