NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/sys/hp48/6622

Text File | 1993-01-02 | 4.1 KB | 85 lines

Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp48
Path: sparky!uunet!nntp.telebit.com!phr
From: [e-mail] (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: The "high price" of the HP48!
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of 1 Jan 93 08:34:45 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: napa
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]> <jcFds*[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail].
    <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 05:56:10 GMT
Lines: 65

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve VanDevender) writes:

      I feel the 48's processor has become so powerful that one needs
      a decent software development environment to make good use of it.
      If there were compilers etc. for it (like for the 95), it would make
      more sense, it seems to me.

   .... As a programmer and former computer science student, I don't
   understand this fixation on compiled languages.  They are good
   for applications programming but poor for interactive
   problem-solving.  The HP 48 does not need a C compiler to be
   useful.  RPL may be unorthodox but it is good for making programs
   to solve problems quickly, and because it is interpreted it is
   much easier to write and debug.

Ok, ok, interpreted languages are fine.  Rather than "compilers"
I should have said "language systems that are convenient to program
in", i.e., not RPL.  Even Basic would have been an improvement.
Something like APL, Mathematica, or Lisp would really be nice.

      How about a 95LX?  A Poqet PC (not sure)?

   If you think the HP 48 is too expensive, I don't entirely see how
   you would recommend the HP 95LX, at almost twice the price.

By "hp 48" is too expensive, I mean it doesn't offer a good power
per dollar ratio.  The pocket PC's I feel are much more powerful.

      It is a much more reasonable buy for someone in your position.  Now
      that I'm working full time I've spent larger amounts on more frivolous
      things than an HP48, but as a student (3 months ago, in my case) it
      still seems like it would have been a financially unwise move.

   ... The HP 48's matrix math and symbolic algebra and calculus
   software would have made my second-year calculus classes
   significantly easier.  The units management features and HP Solve
   would have been a boon in my physics classes.  I could have used
   it to test algorithms in computer science classes in class, on
   the spot.  You certainly can do many of these things with a home
   computer (which I did have), but you can't take the home computer
   with you to class.

Are you really serious when you say you'd have wanted to do these
things *in class*?  That you could code up a complicated algorithm
that you didn't really understand, and test it while the professor was
lecturing and not lose track of the lecture?  (If you understood the
algorithm, you didn't need to code it to see how it worked).  I took
lots of math/cs/physics classes and don't remember *ever* needing to
use a calculator in class, except for maybe an occasional simple
multiplication or something.

   If you admit that a technical professional can use an HP 48 on
   the job, then a student is going to find it equally useful while
   learning the same profession.

The technical professional probably has even less use for an HP48 than
a student, because s/he probably works in an office near a computer,
while a student might want to do homework on the beach or in a
laundromat (that's why students should all have notebook computers).
But for the professional, buying an HP48 is like having a few
expensive restaurant meals.  Both may be nice things to do if you're
not strapped for cash, but that doesn't make them financially sound.
The point is that if you're not strapped for cash, you don't NEED
to always do things that are financially sound, and that means
it is more ok to splurge on things like a 48.