Message #8 Posted by bill platt on 17 Aug 2003, 6:28 p.m.,
in response to message #7 by db (martinez, california)
There is a positive side to the 32k--but you have to see it from the other perspective. Currently, when using the 32sii, it is quite common to have written a whole bunch of tiny little programs, and equations, each of which is relatively trivial and simple on the fly stuff. Now, the crunch comes when you want to "solve" or "integrate" or do some other thing with the machine---and it runs out of memory. 384 bytes is easy to fill up by hand with off the cuff programs---but it is always a shame when you have to chip away half of them just to get "solve" to work.
(This just happened to me today--wrote a simple program for figuring 2nd moments of areas---and had to clean out some stuff--and then discovered that I needed my 2nd 32sii to have enough memory for my handy beam formulas. All these formulas are trivial and easy to program in--and the "overhead" isn't really an issue because the good engineer is always re-familiarizing and confirming anyway---and further without writing paper documentation for 32sii programs, the operational I/O is so cryptic that you can never remember easily what something is, anyway. Now, why wasn't I using a spreadsheet? Ah, the great question--I DO use them--even on this job, but when you are designing a complicated structure, there is really no other good way in my opinion than having decent size scaled sketches, and a calculator and grid tablet, and you go through the structure and design it--very fluid, very hands on and tactile--very direct, but I am getting of topic......)
So, the 32k will take care of this problem.
What remains to be seen is whether or not they have worked through any addressing issues to make it possible to use all of that space---as we have seen, the 12CP is really stuck at 253? lines of programming--so I wonder if we will see a significant line number limitation (either documented or not) in the 33S.
---all assuming of course that it is not a HOAX!