Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
_Sigma

TI-89 Titanium

This topic is 5407 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

I'm considering up grading from my current calc, a TI-83+ to an TI-89 titanium. I've come to understand that the '89s can be programmed in C/C++. Is this true? And can I use my normal C++ compiler to compile it? Or do I have to use the SDK provided by TI? Also, how is the performance of the TI when running C. Its as fast as pure written ASM more or less right? Also, is it possible to program in C/C++ for the 83+/83+ s? And finaly, does the '89 have enough features, for first year university and up, to warrent an upgrade over the 83+/84+ s? Are there programs(for free) that allow the 83+/84+ s to use the capabilites of the '89? Thanks for the input, Sigma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
To put it simply, the TI-89 is the best calculator I've ever seen. The symbolic calculus totally blows away anything else. And it plays games too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've used the TIgcc sdk and it was a blast. It integrates perfectly with vti so you can debug and test without having to upload it to your physical calc.

As of 3-4 years ago there was no C++ compiler for the ti-89. For one, the memory of the ti-89 is much more limited than that of a pc. Try compiling hello worl in C and then again in C++. Streams use hundreds of KB of space that could be better used somewhere else. Given that you probably won't be coding anything particularly advanced because of speed concerns, vanilla C is adaquate for the job.

The symbolic solver is awsome. Though it solves the quation without showing the steps. I certian incarnations of HP calcs DO show the steps which can be helpful when trying to decipher what the calc did.

Although its not cool to have the ti-89 rom if you dont own one, I suggest trying the 89 out somehow, perhaps borrowing a friend's for a day and getting used to it. Its a nice little calc and can do some pretty amazing things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You could theoretically code in C for any of those calcs. I know there is a simple C compiler available for the TI-86, and I'm sure there's one for the TI-83 (check ticalc.org). C will (almost) always be slower than hand-coded ASM, but still quite fast compared to TI-Basic.

You're out of luck for C++. It would be a very challenging task to cram the necessary libraries to support C++ into < ~600k of flash ROM. It's fairly easy to implement most OO concepts in C, however.

Quote:
And finaly, does the '89 have enough features, for first year university and up, to warrent an upgrade over the 83+/84+ s? Are there programs(for free) that allow the 83+/84+ s to use the capabilites of the '89?
As a second-year university student, I can't remember the last time I actually used my calculator in a math class. IMHO, if you already have an 83+, stick with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by aaron_ds
The symbolic solver is awsome. Though it solves the quation without showing the steps. I certian incarnations of HP calcs DO show the steps which can be helpful when trying to decipher what the calc did.


I'd be willing to bet that similiar to Mathematica, the calculator doesn't integrate/differentiate/whatever else like people do. Could be wrong but really it's good since you can't just have the calculator carry you.

EDIT: And while you don't generally use calculators in class, it has what you need to check your homework for all of university except for things calculators obviously don't do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alright, thanks guys.

So in a nut shell:

1.No C++ (which I assumed) but C
2. Almost as fast a ASM

Now, does the C code take up more room? If so, how much *more* room?

>>I'd be willing to bet that similiar to Mathematica, the calculator doesn't integrate/differentiate/whatever else like people do. Could be wrong but really it's good since you can't just have the calculator carry you.


eh?


thanks

Sigma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!