|Re: Question from a lazy (lost?) guy|
Message #5 Posted by Mike Reed on 10 Feb 2008, 2:51 p.m.,
in response to message #3 by Valentin Albillo
WOW!!! How did I miss that LOVELY debate! Thanks Valentin for the reference. I read the whole thing, and was suitably impressed with both sides arguments. I agree that there needs to be more than one way to do things, ANY things. I don't think, at this point, that we will ever see RPN taught in classrooms - it has for any of many reasons become the NON-standard method, even if it has advantages over algebraic.
How many of you type on the Devorak keyboard?? The "qwerty" keyboard was INTENTIONALLY designed to SLOW a typist down!!! Why? Because of "key clash" problems on the old mechanical typewriters (remember those?)- when keys jammed together as a result of typing too fast. (Two or more objects trying to occupy the same space at the same time.) With the advent of computers, word processors, et al., this is no longer a problem. So, WHY are we not using/teaching the Devorak layout to students, now? It is because the "qwerty" layout has become the standard, EVEN IF IT IS LESS EFFICIENT. Does that mean there is only one way of (inputting) typing? No - the Devorak layout is still out there, and can be found if a diligent enough search is made by one who wishes speed and ease of entry over the "standardized" paradigm. The resultant text (output) from both is the same.
In the same way, RPN is "out there" and will be found by those who want what it has to offer. The chicken cannot be put back in the egg shell. Too many of us are familiar with it, and understand it's perceived advantages for it ever to fade into obscurity. But it IS our duty, as loyal users, to attempt to educate and encourage youngsters in the direction of using RPN. Who knows, you might be teaching the next Einstein! And he might never have "gotten it" without your initial push! ;o)