Electronics > Beginners
EE Pros: Is RPN still relevant?
eugenenine:
RPN is the only right way, you must learn RPN, all others are worthless .
:)
RPN is more like how the microprocessor works, it makes it easy to work on a micro in assembly.
w2aew:
Use whatever you're comfortable with. I used alegebraic through school (Casio Elsie-mate), but then got hooked on RPN at my first job in 1985. I've used an HP 15C ever since. Also have a 35S on my desk. I even balance my checkbook with a 32S.
eugenenine:
I used to get magazines from the library with ads for hp calculators, it was like playboys for nerds.
I graduated high school and then 48sx was released and I worked and saved months for it and finally saved up the $300 and bought it from a store called service merchandise. It was under glass like in a jewelry store so I made my purchase then went to the waiting room where the product you bought came out on a belt like luggage in the airport. I almost cried when that little box finally came down the belt for me.
djnz:
It's just calculator stuff... not really much to it imo.
These days I just have an ipython3 shell running all the time on my laptop...
orolo:
Since you mention Forth, there is other family of languages where RPN is prominent: functional languages, like LISP, scheme, Haskell and the SMLs. These languages are not stack oriented, RPN emerges naturally from function composition. Most functional languages are flexible enough to allow the programmer to redefine most operators as infix, but I have found that the higher the abstraction, the more detrimental it is. For arithmetics it's ok; using monads with infix 'do' notation in Haskell just confuses me, even if there are people that swear it's easier.
RPN is the mathematical way of operating. First you get the operands, either in a stack, a tuple, or whatever. Then you apply some function, and get the result.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version