No HP35s Submissions in the Software Library



#29

I have noticed that even though the 35s has been out well over a year there seem to be no actual 35s-specific programs in the Software Library.

Are people not writing and submitting them? Are they getting written but are shared elsewhere? Have they been submitted but Dave hasn't had time to post them yet?

There still seems to be a lot of interest in the calculator and debate of its strengths and foibles, so I must admit that when I click on Software Library link on the home page and notice no contributions I find that curious.

Les


#30

The answer is easy: The 35s is neither an HP-41 nor an HP-48;-)

#31

Today, given the availability of Excel and some such, why would I program a new keystroke programmable calculator with something longer than 20 steps, which is not worth sharing?

I like to use the 35s, but I don't use or need the 800 registers and its relatively huge program memory. I wouldn't want it to be considerably smaller either, because it's always nice to know that you could if you had to and had not to bother to pack everything into 99 steps...

In short: I consider the time of NEW programmable calculators to be over.


Edited: 8 Dec 2008, 4:41 a.m.


#32

Quote:
Today, given the availability of Excel and some such, why would I program a new keystroke programmable calculator with something longer than 20 steps, which is not worth sharing?

...

In short: I consider the time of NEW programmable calculators to be over.


Tell me how you get Excel to wake you up in the morning :-P
Or how you use it in the field for astronomical calculations...


#33

Quote:


Tell me how you get Excel to wake you up in the morning :-P
Or how you use it in the field for astronomical calculations...


That's the "some such" part of my appliances: I use an alarm clock or a timer-radio to wake me up (how would the 35s do that anyway?) and I use my PocketPC with dedicated software when I'm in the field having fun with my card board (!) sextant, although I could use the Mobile Excel on it...


#34

Quote:
That's the "some such" part of my appliances: I use an alarm clock or a timer-radio to wake me up (how would the 35s do that anyway?)

Ah, that's why we need a new calculator released from HP. The HP-43S. As for button-less gadgets in the field; try fiddling with a Pocket PC with mittens in -20 Celsius.


#35

Quote:
As for button-less gadgets in the field; try fiddling with a Pocket PC with mittens in -20 Celsius.

I would not have been able to operate my sextant with mittens in the first place - so why bother with calculator buttons. Nevertheless, I would find it much more convenient to operate a PocketPC with the stylus I had taped to my mitten than key in numbers in a calculator. The build-in GPS in my PocketPC lets me even check if my sextant readings were correct.

But seriously: I refuse to operate either at those temperatures. It's much more fun at a 30° beach with a strawberry margarita at my side.


#36

Quote:
I would not have been able to operate my sextant with mittens in the first place - so why bother with calculator buttons. Nevertheless, I would find it much more convenient to operate a PocketPC with the stylus I had taped to my mitten than key in numbers in a calculator. The build-in GPS in my PocketPC lets me even check if my sextant readings were correct.

But seriously: I refuse to operate either at those temperatures. It's much more fun at a 30° beach with a strawberry margarita at my side.


I bet your Pocket PC would have issues at -20 :-) More so than an HP-41.
And beach and sand and warm weather? Nah, I cordially invite you to snowboarding and a snowball fight.


#37

Quote:
And beach and sand and warm weather? Nah, I cordially invite you to snowboarding and a snowball fight.

Why not do both? I hear that can be done in Hawaii in the course of one single day...

As I live at the south border of the North Sea and you on the north border, maybe there is a better area for recreation to be found nearby...

#38

Quote:
I consider the time of NEW programmable calculators to be over.

I would say: "I consider the time of new powerful programmable calculators with huge memory but without computer connectivity to be over"

I have observed that the typical calculator user doesn´t know how to program his calculator and is not interested in learning it. That´s a fact (at least here in Brazil).

I think HP could still produce a good low cost scientific calculator with simple program capability (perhaps something like the 20s with RPN or 10c) for "the masses" and a more expensive - not too much ;) - powerful, new calculator with computer connectivity for those who take advantage of programmable calculators. It could be named 43s, 45s, etc. The name doesn´t matter. Both MUST HAVE reliable keyboards.

I have also observed that although Excel has been around for years, many people (including myself) still keeps a calculator beside his computer, and the average Excel user doesn´t know how to make plain use of that software either. How many people knows how to construct a simple macro?. This leads me to think: What if we had a way to easily transfer data and results from our calculators to a spreadsheet or even attach them to a Word document? IMHO, it would be nice.

Silvio


#39

Quote:
What if we had a way to easily transfer data and results from our calculators to a spreadsheet or even attach them to a Word document? IMHO, it would be nice.

There is an example of that here with the 50g and Excel: http://sense.net/~egan/skb/.
#40

I would love to have a 35s style calculator with SD card input for program transfer and the pesky bugs worked out, like the cosine bug and the lack of sensible polar/rectangular conversions. Some way of being able to convert text file listings of programs to format readable by the calculator, as is possible with the 49G+ or 50G, would be a wondrous thing. I have had an HP41 for almost 25 years, and I really didn't get into programming until recently until I got a wand and found a faster way to get programs into the calculator (in my case, creating and printing barcode with hp41uc and wanding them in). Keying in 35s programs by hand is tedious. That said, I like adapting programs across RPN platforms and I like how my old faves run faster on the 35S.

Easy I/O is important to me. My iPod touch has become my handheld of choice these days, and the i41cxp is my favourite simulator due to the I/O availability. But I still hang on to my Palm TX, even with the wonky screen, since Free42 is the easiest way I know to test an HP41 program stored in RAW format as generated by the excellent hp41uc. I am really looking forward to Thomas' much anticipated iPhone version of it.

#41

Quote:
Today, given the availability of Excel and some such, why would I program a new keystroke programmable calculator with something longer than 20 steps, which is not worth sharing?

What if you had to solve complex engineering or surveying problems, but were legally barred from using a PC, and therefore could not use Excel ?

This situation affects tens of thousands of American engineers and surveyors every year, because they have to take NCEES licensing exams. That's the market niche that keeps the 33S and 35S alive.

And several vendors do develop and publish 33S or 35S software for this niche. But it has commercial value, so they don't post it here for free.

Quote:
I would say: "I consider the time of new powerful programmable calculators with huge memory but without computer connectivity to be over"

Actually, the 33S and 35S keep their niche precisely because they have no computer connectivity. If they had I/O, they would be banned on NCEES exams.

So there is a commercial market for large NCEES exam software packages, like the one at www.33ssurveyor.com -- even though it takes an estimated 3-5 hours to punch the code in by hand.


Edited: 8 Dec 2008, 4:11 p.m.


#42

Norris, I know that NCEES stuff. It's a bit ridiculous in my eyes. I don't understand why the NCEES does not permit all the tools that engineers would use in real life in the field. The circumventing strategies should bring the NCEES to rethink their regulations.


#43

It's not just NCEES. I think you'll be hard pressed to find many examples of standardized national tests, at any level or in any field, where examinees are allowed to use PCs.

I do know of one exception: some bar exams allow examinees to use a laptop for writing essays. But even then, it's a major hassle: you are required to preload, test, and run special software that locks you out of the rest of your PC during the exam. For example, the California Bar needs six pages of instructions to describe the installation and use of the exam software on laptops.

Regardless of whether or not the restrictions on PC use in exams are ridiculous, the point is that (1) such restrictions currently do exist; and (2) the restrictions do create a niche market for programmable calculators as an alternative, at least in the US.

Edited: 9 Dec 2008, 1:29 p.m.

#44

Apart from not being a 41C, and apart from the user-enthusiast base being significantly smaller than in the good old times, a few other reasons, maybe:


- Some lovely programs for 35s, like Stefan's Matrix Multitool, have been published elsewhere


- Some useful missing routines (like our endless attempts to add P-R and R-P) have been published in the threads


- It is pretty easy to adapt other calcs' RPN programs from the library to 35s


- No I/O is putting us all off from writing anything longer than 10 steps: do we really want to write long programs for 35s which are going to be lost when it enters an infinite loop followed by a hard reset?


- EQN mode replaces the need for many programs we'd normally have to write on 35s


#45

Quote:
Today, given the availability of Excel and some such, why would I program a new keystroke programmable calculator with something longer than 20 steps, which is not worth sharing?

- EQN mode replaces the need for many programs we'd normally have to write on 35s


Exactly. And, unfortunately, the EQN mode on the 35s, being merely a continuation of same mode on 32sii, is rather limited. This is the main reason I dumped mine, even though I was an earlier supporter.

What we need is a new calculator from HP in the mold of 42s and 27s, with fully implemented alpha capabilities, so we can write either meaningful and understandable equations, or programs with full alpha prompts and output, or both.

[edited to correct grammatical error and clarify meaning]

Edited: 8 Dec 2008, 2:53 p.m.

#46

Let's say you do go to the effort to write a program for the 35s and finally get it working...

Then you decide it'd be nice to share. But since there is no way to print the program, or save it to a card, you must now take said program and copy it off, line by line, documenting it as you go. Not a lot of incentive there.

You'll find that people still write, and contribute, programs for the 50g, and I think it's because it's super easy to get your program documented once you have it finished. Not so with calcs that have no I/O support.

My guess anyhow...

thanks,
bruce


#47

Quote:
Let's say you do go to the effort to write a program for the 35s and finally get it working...

Then you decide it'd be nice to share. But since there is no way to print the program, or save it to a card, you must now take said program and copy it off, line by line, documenting it as you go. Not a lot of incentive there.


That really depends on your way of developing calculator programs. For each of my two published HP 35s programs (Matrix Multi-Tool and Curve Fitting), I first developed the computational parts of the program on a computer (using the Pascal-like Maple programming language). Once I got it working, I kept modifying it to make it more and more compatible with the 35s (e.g. using only variables I and J for indexing, rewriting all loops so the test is at the end, etc.).

Next I hand-translated the program into HP 35s instructions in a plain text file, but using symbolic labels instead of line numbers. Finally, I ran that through a mini-assembler script that I wrote, which resolves all the label references and spits out another text file containing pure HP 35s instructions where all the branches refer to line numbers.

As a side-effect, the assembler also produces an HTML file that I can use to document the programs on my web site.

During the debugging phase, if I have to change the program, I change it in my text file first. I then re-run the assembler, use the Unix "diff" utility to compare this with the previous output, and then working backwards through the diff output, edit the program on the calculator. That way, I have no trouble with automatic GTO renumbering while making changes.

I've found that the HP 35s' support of line-number addressing is both a blessing and a curse. The blessing is that you get more than the 26 labels of the HP 33s. The curse is keeping track of what is where when making changes. That's why I ended up writing the mini-assembler, so that I didn't need to worry about line numbers while writing the program.

Stefan

#48

I submitted a couple of 35s programs to the library ages ago. They haven't shown up yet.

- Pauli

#49

Thanks everyone. All the points make perfectly good sense to me.

I like programming the 35s, and recently had a lot of retro-nerd fun porting some favouring 41/42 routines to 35s. I have wanted to share them for sheer curiosity's sake, but the I/O absense is a hassle indeed. One is 74 steps long and the other is 135 steps, plus a couple of special case subroutines that add another 30 steps. They were written as personal pursuits, but have no practical use, I must confess. Sure, the 35s with its improved speed can compute the incomplete beta function and related statistical distributions in a few seconds, but this seems arcane when Mathematica does it instantaneously and to arbitrary precision.

I must admit I just thought folks wrote and contributed programs because programming these calculators is fun :)

I did a bit of SysRPL stuff a few months ago with the 49G+, maybe there would be more interest in that? I learned how to compute some things in extended precision and get much better and faster results, and the routines were ports of C++ routines that had inspired my original RPN versions.

Les


#50

Quote:
lot of retro-nerd fun

...

I must admit I just thought folks wrote and contributed programs because programming these calculators is fun :)


Fun? I do other things for fun. A calculator is a tool to me.


#51

Quote:
Fun? I do other things for fun. A calculator is a tool to me.

Yes, it's a tool. But so is... well, I could name any number of tools that I use both for work and play. Many of them, I derive some form of pleasure from using. I would include among these pleasures the satisfaction I receive from crafting a calculator program that makes my work easier. Yes, I would call it fun.

#52

Ouch, don't I feel like some timewarp trapped dude who lost his way between Dungeons and Dragons and his Nerds Anonymous meeting :)

That said, I have observed that lots of people around here really do collect, refurbish, and program these devices for predominantly recreational reasons. I for one miss Valentin's programming challenges--pure amusement for me, though perhaps more a skill sharpener for some.

This I/O business with the 35S is a hassle, though. Heck, it is too for the 42S, and that calculator is damn near canonized. There are only a handful of 42S specific programs in the Library, as opposed to dozens for the 41.

I do agree that there is a certain queer pleasure in adapting, say, a Numerical Recipes C++ routine for an RPN calculator, and I have a few such routines. But if it takes a few seconds to compute the incomplete beta function to 10 or 11 digits, but Mathematica does it instantaneously to arbitrary precision, it is obvious to me that such coding is for diversion, not real life use.

Les

#53

Hello, Les!

Quote:
I must admit I just thought folks wrote and contributed programs because programming these calculators is fun :)

The 35s with all those bugs definitely is no fun. Even the 12c is more fun:

01 .		17 5
02 5 18 4
03 + 19 0
04 n! 20 0
05 2 21 0
06 ENTER 22 5
07 ENTER 23 ENTER
08 LASTx 24 3
09 * 25 4
10 y^x 26 1/x
11 LASTx 27 y^x
12 n! 28 ENTER
13 x<>y 29 y^x
14 / 30 *
15 x<>y 31 GTO 00
16 /

Just kidding :-)

Regards,

Gerson.


#54

One feels good when you can create a program that is. for instance better, shorter or more efficient than those from HP and other sources. A certain amount of hand keying of programs stimulates the brain, brings out the creativity. The obsession about theft of examinations does seem excessive, but it is their domain exclusively. My try to alter a 35s program crashed due to their automatic renumbering of steps. That may be a bridge too far, as is the 50G programming. They seem to be selling at auction for a song, I have no doubt users feel it is to hard to use. I'm unsure why the 33S package was ever allowed to happen, a good calculator of it's type gone wrong. It does not make good use of the space available with text size or key location. One may suppose some salesman or bean counter thought it jazzy. I give it to youths as it is capable, yet within their capability. I would prefer the HP look well established in the past. I concede the futility of pleasing everyone. I do wish they would please me once in a while. Sam


#55

Quote:
One may suppose some salesman or bean counter thought it [33s] jazzy.

I would prefer the HP look well established in the past. I concede the futility of pleasing everyone. I do wish they would please me once in a while. Sam


Sam, I'm with you on this. But I have concluded that HP DID please me in years past, I just did not know it, since I only bought one of their offerings back then. So instead of waiting for them to come out with a new calculator with the look/quality/features I really want, I have contented myself with buying older HP models as the need arises. Anyway, even if they did come out with a 43/45s, it would be made in China, with all the quality issues that (apparently) come with the territory, so to speak.

Martin


#56

Martin, I applaud your creativity in restoration of older calcs. You make good use of them. From their popularity by users the reissue of some models would not be unreasonable. I think the 50G might be useful for customizing by businesses like for estimators in the field using the upper key label flexibility. One shop foreman was buying 41S calcs for use by his peddlers estimating in the field as an illustration of small business usage. Sam

#57

I think someone ported my old netmask calculation program for the 32Sii to the 35S (I cannot find it, but I think I saw it in an old post here), but seems there's no section for 35S programs.

It would be a good idea to have one, I think :)

(Of course, many thanks to the guy who ported my program to the 35S) :)


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  HP35s Program Four Slings Lift Calculation Jean-Marc Biram (Australia) 2 343 12-16-2013, 07:21 PM
Last Post: Jean-Marc Biram (Australia)
  HP35s Calculator Max Rope Tension Program Jean-Marc Biram (Australia) 10 628 12-12-2013, 12:03 AM
Last Post: Jean-Marc Biram (Australia)
  Hook-µP software by Rush Systems Lute Kamstra 5 366 11-29-2013, 01:30 AM
Last Post: Lute Kamstra
  Library#4 Modules mass-update and New Overlays Ángel Martin 0 222 11-09-2013, 05:55 AM
Last Post: 'Angel Martin
  [HP Prime] Constants Library Values Timothy Roche 24 1,081 11-02-2013, 04:17 PM
Last Post: Les Koller
  [HP-Prime CAS] Vector Calculus Library CompSystems 7 491 10-31-2013, 12:48 PM
Last Post: Han
  Equation Library/App for the Prime Harold A Climer 3 256 10-30-2013, 10:14 AM
Last Post: CompSystems
  Equation Library on the PRIME Harold A Climer 0 152 10-26-2013, 10:01 AM
Last Post: Harold A Climer
  Prime: Pedagoguery Software pop up banner Matt Kernal 1 210 10-20-2013, 01:54 AM
Last Post: Mic
  latest prime software release? Geoff Quickfall 3 278 10-12-2013, 03:53 PM
Last Post: Tim Wessman

Forum Jump: