I disagree. As a fairly recent grad (Aerospace/Mechanical Engineering, USC '06) who was taught Fortran in his first formal programming class, I would say HELL NO. If you're going to teach interpreted languages, then you should be focusing on Python and MATLAB, both widely used in a number of industries. If you're going to teach students a compiled language, then why in the world aren't you teaching C/C++, which has an infinitely greater reach? I haven't even so much as looked at Fortran since leaving school, but I've become quite good at C. Even if I did have to go back and work with Fortran, I'm confident that a couple of weeks of review would be sufficient to get me going, now that my fundamentals are strong. Really, the only exception I can see is if you're going to be running a simulation on a supercomputer, and how many of us do that on a day-to-day basis?
Twenty minutes, I thought, was obviously hyperbole. Maybe I should have said an hour. The Casio interface was horribly slow and clunky when I used it on one of their color graphing calcs. I remember having to wait for a dialog to come up (*twiddle thumbs*) and enter the information there (there was no way to direct-graph from the home screen as there is on the 89), and then it was extremely slow (took 5-10 seconds to plot the graph). Essentially the same problems I have/had with the 48GX, but the HP was much more capable. Of course, things could have changed. So if such is the case and the Casios are no longer horrid (the one I had was just that, horrid), then I stand corrected.
Alright, here we go. I've used a number of calculators in my lifetime (and I'm not even that old at 23) and I can tell you that the TI-89 that I bought when I was in high school is one of the best buys I've ever made. Here is why:
That low-res, non-color screen that you commented on earlier may not be the greatest thing for graphing, but to be honest, who care? One, it saves you a huge headache in the area of battery life (can you imagine having to remember to charge your LCD-equipped calc every night?), and two, if you're using your calculator for complex/3D graphing, then you're on the wrong platform. That's what your computer is for. The graphing function should be used for quick visualization. You'll be hard-pressed to find something else that works as well and fits in the palm of your hand unless it's a UMPC running MATLAB (I love MATLAB, by the way).
I went through this stage at the beginning of college where I really really wanted to drop my TI-89 for something more... exotic. Also, I missed the RPN input functionality that I had become used to through repeated use of my HP32SII, which my dad gave to me in high school. That, by the way, is the greatest calculator I have ever owned. I once had someone offer me 300 bucks for it (they're no longer made). But anyway, I digress. I purchased an HP48GX and was sorely disappointed. Not only is it insanely slow (navigating the interface, graphing, performing calculations, everything else) but the expandability, established 3rd-party (mostly free for the 89) program base, intuitiveness of the interface and calculator language, and battery life were far superior on the 89. And, the fact that everyone seems to have one doesn't hurt. I can't tell you how many times I have both given and received programs that I have found online and developed myself to/from other 89 users. Especially in college. The symbolic manipulation and solver capabilities of the 89 are impressive and the unit is fast and has never given me problems. OS upgrades are a breeze and have brought new features. The USB interface works with both PCs and Macs. I really have very little negative to say about it. If you're looking for a power, easy-to-use calculator, the 89 should be your choice. Oh, and stay away from Casio at all costs. I've also made that mistake... (Unless, of course, you want to spend 20 minutes trying to graph y=x^2.)
That's my 10 yen (I'm teaching English in rural Japan at the moment). Take it or leave it!
Thank you for that. The real pain in the Palm is that the software is so horridly terrible. When I bought a Tungsten T3 to use with my Mac, the included Palm Desktop software wouldn't even sync the new fields that were recently added to the Address Book (for example) software on my Tungsten. That's ridiculous... the included software not syncing everything? And there isn't a halfway decent solution out there for syncing your Palm with your Apple Address Book... the current conduits are bad at best and unusable at worst. Why would you pay for that? I use a Windows Mobile handheld and sync with Missing Sync and I get better syncing and overall functionality than any Palm solution I could ever find. That's the problem.
Everyone who's up in arms over the idea of simplifying the problem needs to calm down. As in most cases, taking into account anything and everything that could effect the trajectory of the spacecraft midflight in mathematical terms creates an overwhelming problem. Science, and good science at that, is constantly conducted using mathematical simplifications (or conducted accepting some form of error... even the most basic measurements, for example, are not accurate in the truest sense). The trick is knowing when and where to make those simplifications and understanding both what you are including the equations and what you are leaving out.
Trying to understand multi-body, multi-plane interplanetary transfers taking into account the effect of radiation pressure, atmospheric drag in LEO, blah blah blah is really not necessary (and becomes extremely complex, as has already been discussed numerous times in previous posts) if all you're trying to do is understand the basic mechanics of a trip to Mars or any other planet, for that matter. Even the mathematics related to bodies that would have an effect on a Mars mission can be simplified through the use of ideas like sphere of influence (SOI; which celestial body has the prevailing gravitational influence on a spacecraft at which points in its trajectory) and the like.
If you're just trying to begin to understand how interplanetary travel works, start with the basics. Then work your way out into Lagrange points, the effects of dark matter on deep space missions, and gravitational assist trajectories.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree. As a fairly recent grad (Aerospace/Mechanical Engineering, USC '06) who was taught Fortran in his first formal programming class, I would say HELL NO. If you're going to teach interpreted languages, then you should be focusing on Python and MATLAB, both widely used in a number of industries. If you're going to teach students a compiled language, then why in the world aren't you teaching C/C++, which has an infinitely greater reach? I haven't even so much as looked at Fortran since leaving school, but I've become quite good at C. Even if I did have to go back and work with Fortran, I'm confident that a couple of weeks of review would be sufficient to get me going, now that my fundamentals are strong. Really, the only exception I can see is if you're going to be running a simulation on a supercomputer, and how many of us do that on a day-to-day basis?
Twenty minutes, I thought, was obviously hyperbole. Maybe I should have said an hour. The Casio interface was horribly slow and clunky when I used it on one of their color graphing calcs. I remember having to wait for a dialog to come up (*twiddle thumbs*) and enter the information there (there was no way to direct-graph from the home screen as there is on the 89), and then it was extremely slow (took 5-10 seconds to plot the graph). Essentially the same problems I have/had with the 48GX, but the HP was much more capable. Of course, things could have changed. So if such is the case and the Casios are no longer horrid (the one I had was just that, horrid), then I stand corrected.
Caught it as I was posting... *cares*, as in, "who cares?" Been in Japan for too long, apparently. Gomen nasai.
Alright, here we go. I've used a number of calculators in my lifetime (and I'm not even that old at 23) and I can tell you that the TI-89 that I bought when I was in high school is one of the best buys I've ever made. Here is why: That low-res, non-color screen that you commented on earlier may not be the greatest thing for graphing, but to be honest, who care? One, it saves you a huge headache in the area of battery life (can you imagine having to remember to charge your LCD-equipped calc every night?), and two, if you're using your calculator for complex/3D graphing, then you're on the wrong platform. That's what your computer is for. The graphing function should be used for quick visualization. You'll be hard-pressed to find something else that works as well and fits in the palm of your hand unless it's a UMPC running MATLAB (I love MATLAB, by the way). I went through this stage at the beginning of college where I really really wanted to drop my TI-89 for something more... exotic. Also, I missed the RPN input functionality that I had become used to through repeated use of my HP32SII, which my dad gave to me in high school. That, by the way, is the greatest calculator I have ever owned. I once had someone offer me 300 bucks for it (they're no longer made). But anyway, I digress. I purchased an HP48GX and was sorely disappointed. Not only is it insanely slow (navigating the interface, graphing, performing calculations, everything else) but the expandability, established 3rd-party (mostly free for the 89) program base, intuitiveness of the interface and calculator language, and battery life were far superior on the 89. And, the fact that everyone seems to have one doesn't hurt. I can't tell you how many times I have both given and received programs that I have found online and developed myself to/from other 89 users. Especially in college. The symbolic manipulation and solver capabilities of the 89 are impressive and the unit is fast and has never given me problems. OS upgrades are a breeze and have brought new features. The USB interface works with both PCs and Macs. I really have very little negative to say about it. If you're looking for a power, easy-to-use calculator, the 89 should be your choice. Oh, and stay away from Casio at all costs. I've also made that mistake... (Unless, of course, you want to spend 20 minutes trying to graph y=x^2.) That's my 10 yen (I'm teaching English in rural Japan at the moment). Take it or leave it!
Thank you for that. The real pain in the Palm is that the software is so horridly terrible. When I bought a Tungsten T3 to use with my Mac, the included Palm Desktop software wouldn't even sync the new fields that were recently added to the Address Book (for example) software on my Tungsten. That's ridiculous... the included software not syncing everything? And there isn't a halfway decent solution out there for syncing your Palm with your Apple Address Book... the current conduits are bad at best and unusable at worst. Why would you pay for that? I use a Windows Mobile handheld and sync with Missing Sync and I get better syncing and overall functionality than any Palm solution I could ever find. That's the problem.
Everyone who's up in arms over the idea of simplifying the problem needs to calm down. As in most cases, taking into account anything and everything that could effect the trajectory of the spacecraft midflight in mathematical terms creates an overwhelming problem. Science, and good science at that, is constantly conducted using mathematical simplifications (or conducted accepting some form of error... even the most basic measurements, for example, are not accurate in the truest sense). The trick is knowing when and where to make those simplifications and understanding both what you are including the equations and what you are leaving out.
Trying to understand multi-body, multi-plane interplanetary transfers taking into account the effect of radiation pressure, atmospheric drag in LEO, blah blah blah is really not necessary (and becomes extremely complex, as has already been discussed numerous times in previous posts) if all you're trying to do is understand the basic mechanics of a trip to Mars or any other planet, for that matter. Even the mathematics related to bodies that would have an effect on a Mars mission can be simplified through the use of ideas like sphere of influence (SOI; which celestial body has the prevailing gravitational influence on a spacecraft at which points in its trajectory) and the like.
If you're just trying to begin to understand how interplanetary travel works, start with the basics. Then work your way out into Lagrange points, the effects of dark matter on deep space missions, and gravitational assist trajectories.