Post Reply 
So.. any improvements RPN-wise ???
04-03-2019, 07:34 PM (This post was last modified: 04-03-2019 07:36 PM by TravisE.)
Post: #24
RE: So.. any improvements RPN-wise ???
(04-03-2019 06:21 PM)Wes Loewer Wrote:  While it was highly satisfying to come up with a really compact RPL program (like Joe Horn's parallel resistors program \<< * LASTARG + / \>> ), using PPL is definitely better for longer programs. When I look back at some of my old RPL code, I have to step through them to remember what in the world I was doing. It's not unlike when I look back through my old ASM code.

I've had some of that problem with RPL myself, especially since it did not natively support comments (unless you kept a separate source file in a string, but then that made the development process more clunky and convoluted). You had to be especially careful to break up programs and use good names, and even then it could be confusing. But it was fun (and most of all, convenient) to write and use them.

Languages like PPL are certainly more readable typically, though PPL in particular is a bit formal for my taste. Requirements such as explicit variable declaration and finicky syntax elements like semicolons after every single construct are rather annoying when trying to throw together an ad-hoc program, especially on a handheld device with the limited type of keyboard the Prime has.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Messages In This Thread
RE: So.. any improvements RPN-wise ??? - TravisE - 04-03-2019 07:34 PM



User(s) browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)