Roger wrote:
>> Me too. A good friend tried to get me to use RPN many years ago and I
>> just couldn't get it. It seemed so strange. Regular algebraic notation
>> seems perfectly logical. There's some interesting psychology going on
>> there. :-)
>I can work in either, but I just don't like RPN even if it is simpler.
>I just don't think that way!
In that case you're sure to hate NETCALC:
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek/netcalc/netcalc.htm
NETCALC is a "Swiss Army Knife" calculator for (R +/-jX) impedance
values. Like many other people back in the MBASIC era, I wrote the
program because there wasn't anything else available at the time.
The text-based entry method is clunky by modern standards, but I
wouldn't ever change the RPN "stack" system because it is the only
method that works the *same* for all the possible operations you can do
with impedance values.
But some unkind people will now ask, "And 'always works backwards' is
good?"
--
73 from Ian GM3SEK
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|