RPN/RPL is still relevant

[Matt Agajanian]

Hello all.

Please bear with me as I try to compose my thoughts.

As a calculator collector, programmer, enthusiast, etc for 42 years, I've fiddled with quite a few logic systems. Although my Sharp and Casio acquisitions are sparse, I've familiarised myself with D.A.L., V.P.A.M. and WriteView.

Since I've also collected HPs all the way from Classics to the 50g and the Corvus 500 clones, I've used both RPN and RPL.

As a TI user since the SR-50 and 56 as well as TI-58C and currently the 86, 89 and nSpire CX CAS, I've used the rudimentary AOS of the SR-50 as well as the fully matured AOS of the SR-56 and TI-58C. And, I've delved into the logic systems of the aforementioned graphing TIs as well.

To the point, as each non-RPN entry method has morphed into more of a true infix and authentic math typesetting entry, they still necessitate the algebraic punctuations and groupings so as to remove ambiguity (ie parentheses, commas). In other words, although these entry methods have improved on fostering a natural entry scheme to the point of being much more natural forms of expression and not forcing the user into a steep learning curve, they've yet to achieve the full efficiency of RPN and RPL methodologies.

Any thoughts?

Thanks