At least the Prizm's Basic, slow as you may say it is, is a proper freaking language `-`

And another:

http://groups.google.com/group/tinspire/msg/607cf51a67ad9382?

Thanks, _player. Does anyone have any ideas for some responses to the topic? Otherwise, I'll try to come up with responses on my own.

,they would not buy it because you are telling them too not buy it `-`. I do not see how adding a decent language manages to make it improper for the standardized tests? Plus, he is contradicting himself as the CX will not be allowed on the ACT as I remembered from a previous post

They actually bring up some pretty good points. I'll have reread to get some solid responses, but it's good to get some outside opinions, as well.

qazz: You need to relax.

Qazz, as Merth said, please take a few deep breaths. Merthsoft, one thing is that the TI-83+/84+ aren't "loopholes". TI released real documentation on the calculators, and they used to encourage third-party development on their devices.

I hate to be the odd one out here but I agree with Eric F and that Nelson person. TI knows what they are doing and the only way you can prove them wrong is to write actual function expanding programs in place of games. The issue with that is the built in functionality seems rather good at that and not requiring ASM/C access and there are plenty of programs to prove it.

There are certainly some inaccuracies, but, like TheStorm said, the points they make about other things are fairly well thought-out and rational.

If I may be so bold as to try to summarize their viewpoint, for right or wrong, they seem to be looking at TI's calculators as being purely a teaching tool, and to have no other purpose. I think that we look on the calculators as a general computational device, and I think therein lies the difference. I also tend to think that it is better to treat it as the latter, since students may have widely varying access to computer classes, computers, programming books, and more, but a huge majority of high school students in the past fifteen years or so have used a TI-83, TI-83+, or TI-84+ series calculator, and it levels the playing field a bit.

Also, a point of housekeeping - on the wishes of one of the authors in the TI-Nspire ground, although the group is publicly viewable, please link to posts in the thread rather than directly quoting them in full, and if you could avoid ad hominem attacks (I'm looking at you, Qazz) that would be great.

While I would love to see TI making the Nspire a viable development platform they have no reason to and have plenty of reasons not to. I would love a C SDK but just looking at the ticalc.org archives proves that the ratio of games to school related feature expanding programs proves TI's side here. A C SDK is not needed from their point of view and they would rather it didn't exist to calm the minds of math teachers who want their students paying attention in class. If we were to make some killer Math or science related programs for the Nspire you could maybe get some momentum but as things stand I don't see a reason for them to change their view.

Another post from a TINspire denizen, that made me quite angry with its somewhat blatant disrespect, plus my response.

http://groups.google.com/group/tinspire/msg/c08e22692f1db200

I just read the last response and he/she/it's pretty biased. I think that you have a lot more experience in judging these types of things. I still think the CX is a REALLY good calculator. The firmware on the Casio's is generally pieces of crap. The TI user interface seems to be superior in that it is more optimized, less memory draining, easier to use, and TI programmers are already familiar with it. I don't think it should necessarily be abandoned, rather TI Calc Coders shouldn't be expecting much more out of the calcs than what we've already accomplished.

Adept, I think we shouldn't abandon the TI calculators as long as TI starts to see the light that programming is not an evil thing and considers at least providing some better BASIC features and the TI-84+ emulator on the Nspires. Would you mind explaining what you mean by " rather TI Calc Coders shouldn't be expecting much more out of the calcs than what we've already accomplished."? Also, I'm curious whether your criticism of Casio calculators is based on hearsay or personal experience.

I used a crappy 50 dollar Casio graphing calculator for a while. I really HATED that calc! That's what I mean. I can't even remember the model, but it was white with a teal snap on cover. Really butt ugly not to mention, although this Casio is pretty sexy looking.

Regarding my statement about the calculator programming, I mean that calculators really aren't capable of anything more than we've done. Calc programmers have been pushing the envelope for over a decade now, and they won't get much more out of the calculators than they have. Even YOU must use an Arduino to squeeze internet connectivity into the calculator. TI is working on their Wi-Fi adapter thing, and I'm sure you're working to make CalcNet work without a PC, but it can't possibly make that much more progress with the current TI models. The important things we can do is produce a diverse software base using the technology we have. Short of ripping the LCD out and putting a new one in, we can't get color or high resolution. Short of taking out the z80 and putting in an Intel Atom, we can't get more speed out of it. I believe that we have truly reached the limits of the hardware at the point we are now. Excuse the long speech... I really got into that one.

I'm curious how you know this when no one even has a CX yet...

Also, where did you hear that Casio's code sucks? While it does, it's a function of the fact the language that it was written in, not that their coders are bad. Furthermore, the [greyscale] Nspire itself has a ton of useless code in its OSes from Nucleus, the company TI bought the OS from.

As for ease of use, I think Casio's interface is actually better for a new calculator user. I think your complaint that TI is much better in that regard is rather unfounded, as I myself still can't fully use the recursive graphing on my 84+ SE after two years and reading the manual multiple times, to say nothing of the equation solver that I've never been able to get working. The equation solver on the Prizm took me approximately thirty seconds to learn for comparison. If you're adapted to a particular style of UI, sure, other styles will be more difficult to use. The same thing goes for computer UIs like Windows and Mac. Some people are more productive with Windows, even though it's generally more functional while others are better with Macs. I think an appropriate analogy in this situation would be that the Casio Prizm is running the calc equivalent of OS X.



And I don't think we have, since I don't see Crysis anywhere on my Prizm.

Uhh... you do know we're talking about the TI-Nspire, right? It doesn't have a z80, it has a much more powerful ARM9. We've just barely tapped into its potential with the hacking we've done.

yeah yeah, I forgot what was inside the N-spire. I only use them when I'm at school anyway. Excuse my rookie error in my rant.

Looks like Casio jumped right into the game here. This thing looks beautiful. I have no doubt TI has noticed the potential of the Casio Prizm, from a homebrew software standpoint. I really have to agree that not putting in place facilities for programming the new TI-Nspire was a bad idea. You know you've screwed up if one of the faces of the TI programming community is promoting your competition.

Thanks, Progbeard, I appreciate the support and the complement. I'm having a fun time with my Prizm; I'm currently working on porting on of my earliest and simplest TI-BASIC games to the device.

Calc84, I think that adept was referring to the TI-83+/84+ lines, rather than to the new Prizm and Nspire lines.

Hey, you should start casio-calc.org and form a rivalry with ti-calc. lolnot