hp65 vs 41c vs 35s µbenchmark

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

(05-31-2014 03:30 PM)Dave Britten Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 02:44 PM)GeorgeOfTheJungle Wrote:  And that's more or less ok, between 130x and 280x, ~= your 34s.

Bear in mind, those were 60-second tests, with a shorter program and pre-loaded stack (label searches may be faster).

Ahhh, yes, you're right, my bad. So the geniuses behind the wp34s, given the same hardware/platform, have made of it not only a better but also a faster calculator than hp? Incredible. No comment.

(05-31-2014 03:30 PM)Dave Britten Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 02:51 PM)GeorgeOfTheJungle Wrote:  LBL + ??? I can't do that in my hp! Why do you use + instead of B?

The 58/59 used weird labeling. You had A-E corresponding to the five hot-keys at the top, and A'-E', the same hot-keys prefixed with 2nd. These would normally be used for your program's entry points. You could also use (almost) any other non-numeric key for a label, which could be called with SBR or GTO. GTO with numeric arguments would be interpreted as a branch to a step number, so that's probably why you couldn't use 0-9 as labels.

Program steps were 100% not merged, so this scheme was probably easier for the parser/state machine. Treat any key code after LBL/GTO/SBR as a label, and a single digit key-code (00-09) after GTO/SBR as a trigger to grab the next step's key code and build a 3-digit step number out of them.

I've never had any TI in my hands. It looks nice, and quite advanced compared to the hp65! Thanks for the detailed explanation.

Cheers,
Jorge.