I think it is more efficient for many calculations, if you can keep track
of
what's on the stack. It's also fun when some engineer borrows it at a
meeting and can't figure out how to multiply two numbers.

My point exactly. The engineer is unable to re-learn his math under
pressure (and he is math trained). So, the ordinary mortal is in for a ton
of confusion if he tries to figure out RPN. True, it makes lots of folks
break arms patting themselves on their backs over how smart they are - but -
the fact remains, RPN was introduced because of electronic limitations of
the time. Sphero explained it very well when he said that AE takes more
interim memory.

Bob Swinney

"ATP" wrote in message
et...
Robert Swinney wrote:
Greg sez:
Yeah, but you can no longer buy an RPN calculator that will
comfortabley fit in your pocket (except used, for big $). I really
miss the HP42S that I lost years ago. It was perfect for my needs
and nobody makes one like it now.

Hey! No problem. I was never "comfortable" with RPN all along.
IMO, RPN was developed (HP probably)
to accommodate the shortcomings of early microprocessors. It takes a
helluva lot more processing power to enter equations "the natural
way". Again, and IMO, those that became "comfortable" with RPN were
deluding themselves into thinking they were some sort of math
geniuses for doing so. On the other hand -- I assume anyone that
could be "comfortable" with the awkward back and forth motion of a
slide rule might not agree. Now, before anyone jumps on me for that
statement - I have several slide rules and know how to use them.
Expertise with a slide rule did not dupe me into learning RPN - I
chose to wait until AE came along.

Bob Swinney