3 ms·

I love Emacs but the calculator, being stack based is just too awkward for me. I know there is the "algebraic mode" but it still is too much. Is there a way to

by wiz21c 9y ago

I love Emacs but the calculator, being stack based is just too awkward for me. I know there is the "algebraic mode" but it still is too much. Is there a way to configure it to work like, say, SpeedCrunch (my favorite calculator by far) ?

nikital 9y ago
I would sometimes open the Messages buffer and then repeatedly use M-x quick-calc to evaluate a few expressions. Each result is written to the Messages so I have a log. Dirty but works :)
- kqr 9y ago
  Why open messages, though? You can paste quick calc results with ctrl y and they end up in messages none the less.
exikyut 9y ago
TIL about SpeedCrunch! http://www.speedcrunch.org/ http://www.speedcrunch.org/ http://www.speedcrunch.org/download.html http://www.speedcrunch.org/download.html even links to 32- and 64-bit prebuilt Qt binaries for Linux. Nice.
- ihaveajob 9y ago
  How does it compare with good old command line 'mc'?
  - wiz21c 9y ago
    you mean "bc" ? Dunno, never used a lot. For computations such as 10+3, it's comparabale. But I give SpeedCrunch an dedge because it can compute "sin(pi/2)" out of the box.
    - ihaveajob 9y ago
      Yes, bc. Obviously it's been a while since I used it!
- kadal 9y ago
  I use Qalculate which is awesome and has similar features. https://qalculate.github.io/ https://qalculate.github.io/
ajross 9y ago
Gotta raise my hand here too. I'm in my mid-40's, have worked at all levels of the software stack, have played with favored development tools of like nine generations of engineers. I still can't wrap my brain around a RPN calculator well enough to use it productively (but boy howdy can I tell you how the stack engine works!). All the cool kids in physics class in the 80's were using HP's, and I felt left out even then. Never managed to make it work for myself.
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  I think about it as first listing a bunch of scalars, then consolidating them with operations. It takes a little practice to start thinking postfix, but it's a relief to not consider order of operations, and tends to be a lot more consistent with how I do arithmetic in my head in the first place.
- presto8 9y ago
  I'm the exact opposite. RPN calculators are totally natural to me, whereas I get confused on normal calculators. Normal (non-algebraic) calculators are inconsistent. To get "2+3", it's infix: 2, +, 3, =. To get "cos(45)" it's postfix: 45 cos (and no equals). And something like "cos(2+3)" is a mixture of both. RPN, is always the same, numbers first, then operators, and usually more keystroke efficient. Some operators take multiple arguments. RPN also has the advantage of (rarely) needing a memory register, since the values can be left on the stack and accessed as they are needed.
nn3 9y ago
I mainly use the algebraic mode Just prefix every expression with '

by wiz21c 9y ago

nikital 9y ago

I would sometimes open the Messages buffer and then repeatedly use M-x quick-calc to evaluate a few expressions. Each result is written to the Messages so I have a log. Dirty but works :)

kqr 9y ago
Why open messages, though? You can paste quick calc results with ctrl y and they end up in messages none the less.

exikyut 9y ago

TIL about SpeedCrunch! http://www.speedcrunch.org/ http://www.speedcrunch.org/ http://www.speedcrunch.org/download.html http://www.speedcrunch.org/download.html even links to 32- and 64-bit prebuilt Qt binaries for Linux. Nice.

ihaveajob 9y ago
How does it compare with good old command line 'mc'?
- wiz21c 9y ago
  you mean "bc" ? Dunno, never used a lot. For computations such as 10+3, it's comparabale. But I give SpeedCrunch an dedge because it can compute "sin(pi/2)" out of the box.
  - ihaveajob 9y ago
    Yes, bc. Obviously it's been a while since I used it!
kadal 9y ago
I use Qalculate which is awesome and has similar features. https://qalculate.github.io/ https://qalculate.github.io/

ajross 9y ago

Gotta raise my hand here too. I'm in my mid-40's, have worked at all levels of the software stack, have played with favored development tools of like nine generations of engineers. I still can't wrap my brain around a RPN calculator well enough to use it productively (but boy howdy can I tell you how the stack engine works!). All the cool kids in physics class in the 80's were using HP's, and I felt left out even then. Never managed to make it work for myself.

thomastjeffery 9y ago
I think about it as first listing a bunch of scalars, then consolidating them with operations. It takes a little practice to start thinking postfix, but it's a relief to not consider order of operations, and tends to be a lot more consistent with how I do arithmetic in my head in the first place.
presto8 9y ago
I'm the exact opposite. RPN calculators are totally natural to me, whereas I get confused on normal calculators. Normal (non-algebraic) calculators are inconsistent. To get "2+3", it's infix: 2, +, 3, =. To get "cos(45)" it's postfix: 45 cos (and no equals). And something like "cos(2+3)" is a mixture of both. RPN, is always the same, numbers first, then operators, and usually more keystroke efficient. Some operators take multiple arguments. RPN also has the advantage of (rarely) needing a memory register, since the values can be left on the stack and accessed as they are needed.

nn3 9y ago

I mainly use the algebraic mode Just prefix every expression with '