4 ms·

For regular notation, you just type all the characters as you read them, including parentheses. This requires less mental activity on the person, as opposed to

For regular notation, you just type all the characters as you read them, including parentheses. This requires less mental activity on the person, as opposed to RPN, which forces you to first parse the entire expression and identify the most nested expression and process outward from that point on.

grzm 9y ago
Anecdote, but I was surprised to find that my father (who used his HP with RPN extensively) found "normal" calculators more difficult to use. At the end of the day I think it comes down to what you're used to. Requiring more or less mental activity can come down to how closely the activity matches what one is comfortable with.
xelxebar 9y ago
I'm not sure about the 41C, but I have a 32SII and you don't need to process "from the inside out". When you encounter an open parenthesis, then you just push the following number onto the stack, when you encounter a close parenthesis, you just perform the relevant arithmetic operation. For the example 2 * (3 + 4) we can do this Input Stack 2 2 3 3,2 4 4,3,2 + 7,2 * 14
- hota_mazi 9y ago
  It works here because the expression is simple. You only have four variables on the stack (maybe more in later models that I'm not aware of) and for those, you are screwed if you just push things on the stack in reading order: 2 * (3 + (4 + (5 + (6 + 7)) The only way to process this is to determine the most nested expression and start there: 6 7 + 5 + 4 + 3 + 2 * ... you get the idea. Expand this expression with multiple deeply nested parens and the limitations of RPN become very obvious.
  - ScottBurson 9y ago
    I'm pretty sure the more recent, higher-end RPN calculators have lots more than 4 stack slots. 4 is usually enough in practice anyway. Your example is artificial. Besides, are you sure your infix calculator will accept this deep a nesting of parentheses? The TI models that were contemporary with the early HPs certainly wouldn't!
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]

grzm 9y ago

Anecdote, but I was surprised to find that my father (who used his HP with RPN extensively) found "normal" calculators more difficult to use. At the end of the day I think it comes down to what you're used to. Requiring more or less mental activity can come down to how closely the activity matches what one is comfortable with.

xelxebar 9y ago

I'm not sure about the 41C, but I have a 32SII and you don't need to process "from the inside out". When you encounter an open parenthesis, then you just push the following number onto the stack, when you encounter a close parenthesis, you just perform the relevant arithmetic operation. For the example 2 * (3 + 4) we can do this Input Stack 2 2 3 3,2 4 4,3,2 + 7,2 * 14

hota_mazi 9y ago
It works here because the expression is simple. You only have four variables on the stack (maybe more in later models that I'm not aware of) and for those, you are screwed if you just push things on the stack in reading order: 2 * (3 + (4 + (5 + (6 + 7)) The only way to process this is to determine the most nested expression and start there: 6 7 + 5 + 4 + 3 + 2 * ... you get the idea. Expand this expression with multiple deeply nested parens and the limitations of RPN become very obvious.
- ScottBurson 9y ago
  I'm pretty sure the more recent, higher-end RPN calculators have lots more than 4 stack slots. 4 is usually enough in practice anyway. Your example is artificial. Besides, are you sure your infix calculator will accept this deep a nesting of parentheses? The TI models that were contemporary with the early HPs certainly wouldn't!
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]