Having both RPN and infix in one language seems like a verb as idea to me. But anyway:
On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 11:22 AM John <john.r.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > RPN is considered > less prone to human error to begin with, with technical users > approaching 4 times the error rate with infix, and non-technical users > 1.5x the error rate with infix, Those sound like results from a study of some sort, so I wonder about the context. For me personally, I really loved RPN on my old HP calculators — particularly the one with a multi line screen that could showy the stack. But that’s keying things into a calcular, where adding parens is a pain. When trying to read RPN, I really struggle. Granted, that may because I haven’t practiced it hardly at all, but I’m not so sure. And the fact that most math instruction and use is done with infix and parentheses makes a very strong case. Everyone is familiar with infix, hardly anyone is familiar with RPN. -CHB Less useful on smaller equations, where algebraic is probably more > appropriate just because people are used to algebraic: > No small advantage. Frankly, putting long equations all in one line of code will always be hard to read. -- Christopher Barker, PhD (Chris) Python Language Consulting - Teaching - Scientific Software Development - Desktop GUI and Web Development - wxPython, numpy, scipy, Cython
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/KW3BY34B2MO7SVJ4KAZ3N3BMJEEGZNGU/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
