New CASIO Add-Ins
Posted 20 December 2002 - 09:10 AM
Here's the link http://www.casio.co....sources/add_in/
After you've seen it, tell me what you think about Verify?
Posted 20 December 2002 - 08:10 PM
Can my 9850G really deal with add-ins?
Posted 20 December 2002 - 08:50 PM
i will do it in march next year. i hope i get one to my birthday. it could be that i buy one after x-mas.
Posted 21 December 2002 - 12:09 AM
Posted 21 December 2002 - 08:39 AM
but the afx is faster than the fx!
Posted 21 December 2002 - 08:40 AM
Posted 05 January 2003 - 12:20 AM
Who will release it first? BitWhise or Casio?
Posted 05 January 2003 - 02:28 AM
look there.. they finally decided to make a 3d grapher for the afx
I'm afraid they will probably release it before me. I'm quite bussy at the moment, with courseworks and exams
Anyway, let's see what they have, and I'll make something better
Posted 06 January 2003 - 10:53 PM
casio make programs who sucks on speed !
Posted 07 January 2003 - 03:05 PM
i wouldnt say so. there are some programs on my 9850 made by casio who are really good at speed.
"casio make programs who sucks on speed !"
Posted 07 January 2003 - 04:03 PM
By programs, do you mean Basic programs?
there are some programs on my 9850 made by casio who are really good at speed.
It's kinda hard to say wether or not Casio's programs (real programs, not basic) are well optimized.
My guess is that most of their mathematical algorithms are quite well written, but when it comes to the user end and graphical part of their programs, speed of developement and size of progs is more important than runtime speeds.
The thing is, that all these programs rely on the same set of libraries for the graphics, so it would be natural to put them all in the ROM, and make them accesible from any prog. They are probably acceces by Interrupts, and thus will cause a slow down in many applications.
Take for example the graph mode. Drawing a graph takes long, no matter how simple the function is. Think about it.. for every pixel it puts on the screen (after calculating the value.. *), it does a putpixel interrupt call. This bit takes either two short int paramaters (in which case the double precicion floating point values first has to aligned with the view-window and then truncated to integers), or the function takes two double floats. That means, 1 - 2 interrupts, lots of pushes and pops, clearing of registers, etc etc
Wheras it could be done by making all these operations inline function (macros), in which case the graph should plot faster.
*calculating the value.., since the values are calculated as you go, rather than pre-calculated (should have a "fast-graph" option), it has to do an expression evaluation for each point on the graph. If it was precalculated, it could do the expression evaluation once, and changing only the variable parameters of the graph, in a sequence (which could further optimize the loops, etc)
Anyway, they are not making games, but mathematical software, which is fast enough for the normal student.. however, I would like to see the graphing part optimized (it's tediously slow), and a faster Basic interperator, and option to declare variables and chose what type they are, optimized integer calculations (not using floats, after declearing my int variables )... and so on
As an end note: I will assume most of their software is programmed in a high level language, like C...
Posted 07 January 2003 - 07:06 PM
sorry didnt read the whole text of you bitwhise...
Posted 07 January 2003 - 07:09 PM
yeah.. but then again, no real calculations are necesary for that part
but trace shit is fast as hell...
Posted 07 January 2003 - 08:49 PM
Posted 07 January 2003 - 09:24 PM
Posted 07 January 2003 - 10:20 PM
I guess you are refering to my comment on most of their software being made high-level..
the most important is the result and the time to get the result, not the way to the result!
On a modern computer low-level programming gives little or almost no performance increase in normal applications, due to the diversity in hardware on todays computers.
However, with fixed hardware and limited resources, like on the AFX, low-level programming will allways yield a perfomance boost when compared with the similar software coded in high-level. Just as important, high-level languages can increase filesize dramatically, which is really a drawback on a machine with so little memorry.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users