On 8/18/2010 2:54 AM, Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
> 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?"
>
It's one redeeming feature is there is no parenthesis. <:-)) So the
order of operation is linear from beginning to end.
73
Roger (K8RI)
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|