When I was in college, one of my teachers mentioned that back in his day, the geeks would get into fistfights over which is better in a calculator: algebraic notation or reverse polish notation and more specifically, Texas Instruments versus Hewlett Packard. Nowadays, it seems algebraic is preferred by far as I don’t know anyone that uses RPN other than myself. I can’t understand this because while algebraic notation is how we write, RPN is closer to how we think (at least how I do). After using an HP 32SII for a while, algebraic seems like a major downgrade. So I thought I’d get sample data from a more intelligent bunch with this post. What are your opinions?
Using an RPN calculator means nobody will borrow your calculator a second time.
Really, I could never see the other advantages, though I have owned and used both. Maybe that’s because any discussion of stacks puts me to sleep instantly. It’s why I could never program in FORTH, too.
I forgot about that.
“Can I borrow your calculator?”
“Sure.”
“Where’s the equal sign?”
“There isn’t one. You put in the first number, press enter, put in the second number, and press the sign.”
“You do it.”
That’s if they can figure out how to turn it on.
Moderator’s Note: Moving to IMHO.
Count me in as a RPN supporter. I still have my HP around, even if I don’t use it very often now. Once I got over the initial confusion I found RPN to be more intuitive, and the few times I borrowed an algebraic calculator I would automatically type in the data and look for the Enter key…
I have been a HP user since 4Apr83 when I got my first HP ( a 12c which cost me $112.34). I have used three others since then. I can’t use a AOS calculator anymore because I have to translate the steps. It gets me confused. I think that the HPs attract a certain type of thinker. I also think that (at least until recently) they were much better built. My current 48C has been thrown around, dropped, carried in a pocket for 10 years and I have never had any problems with the contacts on the keys. I doubt a TI would have the same longevity. As a case of point, I still have my 12c, It’s lost the metal pannel around the display and needs new batteries, but I am positive that it’ll turn on and work.
My problem is getting a windows plug in that works like my 48c. Way back there was a PC tools plug in that was an exact duplicate of the front of the 12c. I am still looking for a plug in that works the same way. I usually just open up a spreadsheet. Sigh.
Another RPN fan here. My HP-41C finally gave up the ghost a couple of years ago, and I can’t seem to find one that matches up. I don’t really have any need for anything more thatn a basic calculator these days, and my son is only 6 so I can’t really use him as an excuse.
Never mind, I think I’ll go and buy myself one of these.
algebraic, i prefer as its easier to see precedence when forming an equation. and besides theres a reason that postfix has that nasty moniker.
I’ve used HP RPN calculators since slide rules were still in style. (Well, not quite that long, but for quite a while.) I think RPN is faster to enter and process, but you do have to remember the step that you are on. Algebraic is probably a little more straightforward and intuitive, but once you’ve gotten used to RPN you won’t go back. And I agree that it’s great fun to hand your HP over to a neophyte and watch them stuggle to find the on-switch, enter in a problem, and hunt for the equals key.
What really farks me up is when I pick up an HP calculator that isn’t RPN. A cow-orker has one of these bastard children, and on the few occasions I’ve picked it up to crunch some numbers I’d gives me a 500amp shock when it won’t give me the right answer. “Whatinaheck? Mother-fu…oh, yeah. It’s one of those kinds. Ugh!”
Stranger
I’m, regretably, a RPN virgin. In fact, with all I know about geekiness, this is the first I have heard of it. Never have I taken a HP calculator seriously, for that matter; for me, it was always TIs, with my current model being the TI-89.
49g+ is damn sexy, though. Just might have to look into it.
I like RPN but I rarely get to use it now. Postscript (the printer language) is set up like that but almost nobody programs that by hand anymore. If you’re writing a program that has to parse math functions then RPN is the way to go, it’s so much quicker than trying to track states. When I write anything that gets parsed algebraically I throw in all sorts of extra parentheses just to make sure what I think of as the order of precedents is really the order that gets followed.
RPN is the only way to go. I can’t stand algebraic calcs, and haven’t used them for years. I still use my trusty old HP11C, the only serious calculator I’ve ever needed.
Once you know RPN, it’s way faster and more intuitive, IMHO.
My 11C still works great! It’s something like 17-18 years old. I love it. I hope it never dies.
I’ve been using RPN exclusively since college and can’t even remember how to use a regular one (except for the most basic calculations). With RPN it’s pretty easy to do a complex calculation like ((3 * 4) + (5 + 7) * (2 - 1)) - you just hit 3,<enter>,4,,5,<enter>,7,+,2,<enter>1,-,,+. How would you do it on an algebraic calculator?
Actually I’ve started using Google as a calculator quite often. There you can enter a complete calculation with formulas and even units.
Big RPN fan here - also big fan of Forth.
You know, HP calculators don’t really use RPN completely, except for the very lovely 28S. A good example of something sensitive to RPN implementation is 1 Enter 3 Enter +. A true RPN calculator will return 4 but most HPs return 6. HP uses something called “stack lift enable/disable” that has no place in true RPN.
And then there’s Scheme, which uses PN. That’s Polish Notation, not Reverse Polish Notation. As in (+ 3 4) which will return 7, or (+ 3 (* 5 6)) which returns 33.
It’s pretty simple really.
If you understand what you’re doing, RPN is the way to go. If you’re cluelessly plugging data into a formula you can’t comprehend, then AOS is the way to go.
Anyone wonder why RPN has largely died in the marketplace?
HP41C (or was it -43C) owner from 1975-ish.
Eh? I don’t think that’s right. I’ve had a number of HP RPN calculators, and they’d all handle that just fine. I just checked it on my 48G, and it gives the correct answer. You can dispense with the last enter if you like, as it completes the stack enter operation when you hit the “+”, but if you do enter it it just puts it on the stack.
I had a 28S, and while it was a cool concept (it folded out like a book, with the numeric/operation keyboard on one side and the alphabetic keypad on the other) but it had a few hardware problems. I never had the oft-reported problem with the hinge connection, but the battery hatch kept repeatedly breaking, which I finally had to fix with some epoxy and aluminum sheet (essentially, making my own hatch.) Also, the stupid camera batteries it used cost an arm and a leg. The AAA batteries in the 48-series last longer and are easily found.
I don’t think any other manufacturer seriously produced RPN calculators. I believe TI might have made one at some point but at the time HP was the premium portable engineering calculator to have. TI, Casio, and others started to take marketshare in the late '80s with the advent of LCD graphing calculators, and HP made the mistake of making a graphing calculator (the afformentioned 28S) with a wide but short screen. Also, the Casio and TIs were significantly cheaper than the HP. When college and some high school math and engineering curriculums started requiring graphing calculators TI became the winner by nature of its low cost, large screen, and easy-to-use algebraic functionality. HP mostly lost out because it required a different convention and its more advanced features, like symbolic solution of integrals and expansion cards, just weren’t necessary for many students. Although they eventually came out with cheaper models, it was too late. (Although the school I went to required the HP-48 for the lower-division classes the year after I got through with those, probably in order to be more like MIT.)
Too bad, because aside from all other issues, the HP is really a better designed calculator.
Stranger
I love RPN. It is very close to how I think, at the very least, and I can really fly with a stack when doing complex calculations. It might look awkward when written out, but as you’re typing it just feels natural.
Plus, I think TI’s BASIC is a joke of a programming language. (Yes, I have programmed in it.) It’s a throwback to the ROM BASICs foisted on microcomputer owners in the 1970s and 1980s. HP’s RPL, however, is a real gem: I can work up a reasonable approximation of LISP with very little effort, even to the point of writing my own map function. RPL is a gift HP gave to Real Programmers, whereas TI BASIC is a sop for people who just want to plug values into algorithms.
HP 48-GX forever! Nerd power!
On an algebraic calculator, you would enter everything as you’ve written it, except for the superfluous beginning and ending parentheses. That would work just fine for your example. Frankly, the reason why RPN calculators have essentially lost favor with the current generation (not older farts like many of us) is that the algebraic calculators are easier to use – you can just type in exactly what you’ve written down and press the equal sign to get the answer. Me, I can use algebraic or RPN without any problems, but I usually recommend an algebraic calculator to someone buying his first calculator.
Hehe… I’ve annoyed countless people with my 15C and 12C calcs.
Oh, and they’re durable little buggers! My 15C is 20 years old but still looks decent, save for having lost the “15C” nameplate in a “naked” tumble down a long flight of concrete stairs. No idea how old the 12C is as I picked it up for two bucks at a garage sale. 
Trade shows are generally decent sources of disposable little four-bangers to keep on hand for the moochers.
In high school my dad got me an HP 48SX for calc class from one of his engineer friends at work; I was one of two kids in class with an HP (everyone else was on TI eighty-somethings). I loved it, and it made a lot more sense to me than the TIs did (and seemed to be a lot more versitle and functional, independant of RPN). I’ve still got it, and it’s a great calculator. Ruggedly built and well designed; if I ever need another calculator you can bet I’ll go to HP for it.