andrprosperi wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2019 2:44 amIt's not a casual mistake, and I'm sure Walter has a reason, so let's just ask:burkhard wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:22 pmBut it's not a question (for me) of "early" or "late" HP layout. I am actually OK with EITHER the "early" or the "late" layout.
What I would really prefer to avoid is a hybrid that is neither... i.e. putting the operators on the left like the "early" ones, but arranging them in the "late" ones' order as is the present WP43S official development path. That I think is a mistake.
In the end though, I have no cause to complain and I'll buy the darned thing no matter what.
I'm just going to cringe a bit that neither of the existing two conventions was followed.
Huh! I was wrong... there isn't a reason.Walter wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:23 pmOn your request I've to quote myself (sorry). Please read all of the following - no cherry picking:Some additional remarks:Walter wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 10:27 pmAs Bob ((Prosperi)) wrote already, this is a religuous topic Nevertheless I'll try to summarice the facts:
All of HP's pocket calculators up to and including the famous HP-41C had the arithmetic operators on the left below ENTER. The Voyagers had to put them on the right for obvious reasons ((placing them in the middle of the keyboard would look really odd)). With the Pioneers, they staid on the right - but ENTER remained on the left. So much about HP's logical ((keyboard layout)) development.
There was a very extensive discussion of this topic on the forum of MoHPC in 2012 IIRC, followed by a poll. After all, many people agreed on ENTER and the 4 operators should be in the same column (for various reasons). And the poll resulted in our decision (we, the developers) to place the 4 operators on the left, backed by a majority of votes IIRC. ((And to intercept legends arising: at said poll, the order of arithmetic operators was as it is today - constant for 7 years. You can verify this easily.))
So, now they are there.
- HP abandoned ÷ × + - in 1981, turning to + - × ÷. This latter sequence has a lot more inherent logic than the former. And up to now, nobody (no survivor, no adept) was able to tell the reason for that odd old order of operators. I can't promote a product I'm unable to justify.
- Please note we're in 2019, not 1981 anymore. What would people of 2019 say if we'd drop operator order of today for an order of 1972 for no other reason than nostalgia? If you cannot adapt to one change in four decades you're probably petrified already. (BTW: Didn't the USA promise to go metric in 1975? So much about effective application of international standards in the USA. Thus, as an 'old European' I'm always slightly amused when US citizens mention standards [bitter grin]. Get your homework done before clashing another expensive probe on whatever planet.[/rant])
- We will stick to the standard order of arithmetic operators as everyone learned, learns, and will learn at school worldwide for good reasons. Promised. But none of us will interfere when you tell your grandkids that there once was another order on some old calculators long ago (Grandpa, you're kidding! Why on earth should they've done it that weird way?!). Promised as well.
Other than W & P like it that way. Which to be fair, is equally valid as my own "I'd like it the way it was". After all, these are just opinions.
I've no interest in waging a war over a religious topic, sadly there are too many people in the world doing this already. If the 43S is delivered as planned, I'll get one and learn to use it (at least some of it) and probably get used to it. If one can adapt to the 50g layout, this is trivial.