[HN Gopher] Qalculate - A multi-purpose cross-platform desktop c...
___________________________________________________________________
Qalculate - A multi-purpose cross-platform desktop calculator
Author : pantalaimon
Score : 180 points
Date : 2023-08-07 17:44 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (qalculate.github.io)
(TXT) w3m dump (qalculate.github.io)
| georgeburdell wrote:
| As an engineer, I usually can just pop my expression into
| Siri/Spotlight or Cortana with a hotkey and get the result just
| fine. What kinds of calculations are people needing more for?
| discordance wrote:
| Can you do dimensional analysis in Siri?
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Or solve equations?
|
| I imagine Siri has a database of constants, but is it usable?
| georgeburdell wrote:
| I'm not sure what dimensional analysis means in this context.
| Is this like "does N-m = kg x m2/s2"?
| dTal wrote:
| Indeed, alongside all the other numerical calculations and
| symbolic manipulation...
|
| Example question: what is the diameter of a sphere of
| tungsten - in inches, say - that weighs the same as a human
| (say, 150 lbs)?
|
| Looking up the formula for the volume of a sphere gives: v
| = (4/3) pi (r^3), and googling the density of tungsten
| gives us 19.3 g/cm3.
|
| Great! Now we already have inches, centimeters, pounds,
| grams, a fiddly ^3 to trip up our unit conversion from
| cubic centimeters to cubic inches (or is it vice versa?),
| some rearranging of an equation to extract the 'r'...
|
| Luckily with qalculate, we can just smoosh it all together
| without thinking. We can substitute 'd/2' for "r", followed
| by 'x' for 'd' to tell qalculate that that's the quantity
| we want to figure out, and put it in inches while we're at
| it:
|
| v = (4/3) pi ((x/2 inches)^3)
|
| We're not after the volume but rather the mass, which is
| the volume times the density, and should equal 150lbs:
|
| 150 lb = (19.3 g/cm3) (4/3) pi ((x/2 inches)^3)
|
| Hit enter and:
|
| x [?] 7.434184004
|
| Amazing. A 7.4 inch cannonball of tungsten weighs as much
| as an adult human. Note that the result is only
| dimensionless because we balanced the equation - if we'd
| messed up any part of this formula, we'd have probably got
| our answer back in some perverse unit instead.
|
| Oh and we didn't actually need to look up the formula for
| the volume of a sphere:
|
| 150 lb = (19.3 g/cm3) sphere(x/2 inches)
| jandrese wrote:
| I'm confused why the result is dimensionless when you
| asked for inches.
| scraptor wrote:
| Its returning the text that needs to be inserted in place
| of x to make the equality true. Since the parentheses
| already contain the inches they are not redundantly
| attached to the x. If you remove the inches from the
| query you get the result in mm, you would use 150 lb =
| (19.3 g/cm3) (4/3) pi ((x/2)^3) -> inches to get the
| answer in inches.
| themodelplumber wrote:
| Can it do ans* etc. Is there a history of expressions and
| results. Is the history on-screen while next expression is
| typed. Is there a current result indicator, i.e. live update of
| the expression result as you fiddle with parameters.
|
| Just what's coming to mind for basic daily use here.
| rom1v wrote:
| There is also the command line version: `qalc`.
|
| I use it since I discovered it.
| Aachen wrote:
| Same. I was happy with `apt install calc` (I think nowadays
| called apcalc) for years because it does arbitrary precision
| and isn't as awkward as a python shell or so, but qalc is
| clearly a step up with support for units and solving
| $ calc 2^x=4 x is undefined $ qalc 2^x=4
| ((2^x) = 4) = (x = 2)
|
| I used the above for determining after how many years a given
| inflation rate doubles a price (1.03^x=2)
|
| I think my most recent real-world application for units
| calculation was about how much energy a device uses in kWh
| after a year, given that it draws 10W during office hours:
| $ qalc 10W*(8h/day)*1year to kWh
| (10 * watt) * ((8 * hour) / day) * (1 * year) = 29.22 kW*h
|
| It even does time calculations: 13:37-08:00 tells you that
| you've been working for about 5.6 hours.
|
| I don't know why this isn't the universally used command-line
| calculator. I have it on my phone as well via a Debian
| subsystem and it's the best
| kbd wrote:
| > $ qalc 10W _(8h /day)_1year to kWh
|
| Question: why didn't you need quotes around the first
| expression? Both Zsh and Bash error on that command without
| quotes. Are you using nushell?
| Aachen wrote:
| Omitted for simplicity
| poetaster wrote:
| hmmmm. bash worked for me as was ?
| glibg10b wrote:
| I use it as my calculator app on my phone
| amelius wrote:
| If this evolves a little further, you get Jupyter notebooks.
| akho wrote:
| Doing units in Python is a pain. No easy RPN/stack mode. No
| flexibility in parsing. Vector, matrix, and date maths require
| weird syntax. No good concept of infinite number.
|
| Stuff it. I'm just reformulating
| https://qalculate.github.io/features.html ; you can do that
| yourself.
| amelius wrote:
| https://docs.sympy.org/latest/modules/physics/units/index.ht.
| ..
| bityard wrote:
| Anyone else just use the Python REPL as their desktop calculator?
| oneshtein wrote:
| bc -l
| nuxi wrote:
| For one-off simple calculations I just use awk, with this handy
| function in my .bashrc: function calc() { awk
| "BEGIN{print $*}"; } # usage in bash $ calc
| 'sqrt(25) + 2**3 - 17.17' -4.17
| freedomben wrote:
| Yes! (although ruby (irb) instead of python). It's amazingly
| useful to be able plug in expressions in a single line of text
| format. Though for more complex expressions, something like
| qalculate looks nice to me.
| idanp wrote:
| yes, with modifications - https://github.com/idanpa/calcpy
| poetaster wrote:
| Looks really nice! I wanted to ask if 'matplotlib' was
| strictly needed since it's a big depends?
| idanp wrote:
| matplotlib is not needed, SymPy fallsback to ascii plotter
| and this is what I use on phone with termux.
| cyfex wrote:
| It's a really great calculator for all sorts of stuff.
|
| I use many of the following almost daily:
|
| - currency conversion: `x USD to EUR` or `BTC to USD`
|
| - time calculations: `now - 27 hours`
|
| - unix epoch conversion: `timestamp(now - 3 days)`, also
| `stamptodate()`
|
| - unit conversion: `34 oC to oF`
|
| and more.
|
| Works really nicely with https://github.com/svenstaro/rofi-calc
| FpUser wrote:
| Beautiful piece of work. Kudos
| jnsaff2 wrote:
| I find it quickest to CTRL+SHIFT+K if I'm in the browser or run
| `iex` or `python3` in terminal to calculate something ad-hoc.
| 6510 wrote:
| I'm told if you don't use floats the computer will explode and
| the whole city will burn down. End times, armageddon scenario
| pretty much.
| netbioserror wrote:
| If you want a lighter-weight package featuring a plaintext REPL,
| a large library of functions, function definition, arbitrary
| precision, and more (minus solver capability), give Speedcrunch a
| try:
|
| https://heldercorreia.bitbucket.io/speedcrunch/
| badtension wrote:
| Speedcrunch is great but has (had?) a very annoying bug: was
| pretty slow after a while. You need to manually clear the
| history to make it load fast again.
|
| I have it on speed dial (pause / break key to open and close)
| and use it all the time.
| ziml77 wrote:
| A note to anyone using a high DPI display: you can build this
| from source and get a version that scales itself cleanly
| instead of forcing the OS to make a blurry mess out of it.
| eviks wrote:
| what changes would you need to make so that the build isn't
| blurry?
| lholden wrote:
| I switched from Speedcrunch to Qalculate a while ago. I don't
| actually remember _exactly_ why I switched at this point. (I
| think due to a lack of updates). Qalculate very similar in many
| ways, but I do like the interface on Speedcrunch better (after
| hiding the keyboard). The new UI for Qalculate has a similar
| enough feel to Speedcrunch that I 've been happy with it.
| patrec wrote:
| Qalculate has a plain text repl (qalc), as well. And, as far as
| I know, all the other things you mention. Speedcrunch might be
| awesome for all I know (never tried it), but your comment does
| not really shed any light on why one would pick it over
| qalculate (what does "lighter-weight" mean? It's not like
| qalculate takes minutes to start up or is hard to use).
| ciupicri wrote:
| The plain text qalc doesn't compare with Speedcrunch. How do
| you copy & paste for example? Speedcrunch also has a shortcut
| for putting the result into the clipboard.
|
| You can make Speedcrunch look like a good old fashioned bc
| session, whereas Qalculate puts way too much stuff on the
| screen. It misses a simple REPL mode.
| tryptophan wrote:
| I strongly prefer speedcrunch due to it opening much faster
| and being simpler.
|
| Qalc has poor documentation so I don't find learning its
| extra features to be worthwhile.
|
| Qalc is also awkward to type.
| Aardwolf wrote:
| You can copypaste plain text to and from the terminal, what
| kind of copypaste do you mean?
| ciupicri wrote:
| The shortcuts aren't the same, especially for copy. For
| example instead of Control+C (which normally interrupts
| the program), you have to use Shift+Control+C.
| poetaster wrote:
| I'll +1 speedcrunch It's also been built for off-broadway
| mobile OS Sailfish.
| pxc wrote:
| In college, I started out with SpeedCrunch because it comes
| with many KDE-based Linux distros as their default calculator.
| I eventually went on to play with a few alternatives and
| ultimately settled on Cantor, which is a nice, notebook-style
| frontend for pretty much every mathematical programming
| environment you can think of (including Qalculate!). At the
| time, I really liked using it with Maxima (and sometimes R).
|
| https://cantor.kde.org/
| themodelplumber wrote:
| Plus you can quickly build websites with speedcrunch IIRC
|
| Edit: https://www.friendlyskies.net/speedcrunch/
|
| Kinda funny but also impressive in its way...
| curiousfab wrote:
| Fantastic tool. It also has a command line version which has
| almost completely replaced `bc` for me.
| jstanley wrote:
| The most annoying part about bc is always having to type
| "scale=5" before you start otherwise it makes you think all
| your answers are integer.
| fuzztester wrote:
| What danadam said.
|
| Also:
|
| https://www.gnu.org/software/bc/manual/html_mono/bc.html#TOC.
| ..
|
| Environment variables
|
| BC_ENV_ARGS
| danadam wrote:
| "bc -l" runs it with scale set to 20. Also preloads some math
| functions.
| mnw21cam wrote:
| The word "some" is definitely an exaggeration here.
| gavinhoward wrote:
| Not on my bc. [1]
|
| If it's missing anything you need, let me know.
|
| [1]: https://git.gavinhoward.com/gavin/bc
| poetaster wrote:
| I wanted to chime in as a calculator dev dude. Qalculate is
| really nice if you want the kitchen sink, which I do on the
| desktop. I also, depending on the task use speedcruch which
| others have mentioned.
|
| Using https://github.com/ArashPartow/exprtk I have one calculator
| with a repl at 512kb, including a QML wrapper. I have a combined
| rpn calculator using sympy (based on the work of others) with
| exprtk as a 'programmer's calculator' on the side
| (https://github.com/poetaster/fibonacci). And several QML apps
| for symbolic CAS using sympy.
|
| I have way too many calculators. They are so much fun to build.
| Now I ask myself, port the Qalculate methods to macros for exprtk
| or check out using libqalculate? I'm not sure. exprtk is so
| light? And adding macros discrete.
| qwerty456127 wrote:
| Lisp is the ultimate desktop calculator. But this one looks nice
| anyway.
| poetaster wrote:
| I forgot to mention in my last comment that
| https://github.com/vetux/qcalculator is also a nice qt based,
| exprtk using calculator with a python interface and higher
| floating point precision than plain exprtk.
| blondin wrote:
| i wonder why calculator apps are so popular
| akho wrote:
| They compute things on a computer
|
| "Popular" is a bit of a stretch though, I'm not aware of any
| fanclubs
| grotorea wrote:
| It's the oldest use-case for non-human computing and one the
| things computers are best at compared to humans.
| rnallandigal wrote:
| I have it bound to `$mod+c` and launched as a floating window in
| i3. It integrates very well into my workflow as I can just
| quickly launch, perform a one-off calc, and close it whether I'm
| in a terminal or elsewhere. Since it saves history, I can always
| relaunch it and continue where I left off as well.
| cyfex wrote:
| I have `$mod+c` bound to rofi-calc [1] which I find even more
| convenient.
|
| 1. https://github.com/svenstaro/rofi-calc
| Svenstaro wrote:
| Glad you like it. :)
| poetaster wrote:
| Cool. Just having seen this I guess I'd better look at
| using libqalculate in earnest!
| xchkr1337 wrote:
| I hve a global shortcut to open a Julia REPL session and I use
| that to perform any sort of quick calculations instead of a GUI
| calculator. The best thing about this approach is that I can
| always create new functions for stuff I use often.
| bobmaxup wrote:
| I am not sure if it is of interest to you, but from the cli,
| qalc's REPL is much faster to start when compared to julia
| sundarurfriend wrote:
| > The best thing about this approach is that I can always
| create new functions for stuff I use often.
|
| Do you put those in your startup.jl? Do you have a Startup
| package like some recommend for Julia 1.9+?
| Aardwolf wrote:
| I tried this in cinnamon. But I use multiple desktops and if
| qalculate is already on another desktop, the experience is
| pretty bad since it doesn't move to this one (and I do want its
| 'allow only single process at once' enabled so settings save
| properly)
|
| Does there exist a solution for that?
| nh23423fefe wrote:
| i like the rpn mode
| kqr wrote:
| Huh, yeah, it _does_ do RPN. This is actually looking like a
| serious replacement for my current daily driver, Emacs calc.
| despi wrote:
| Qalculate is great. I also use insect on the terminal for quick
| calculations or conversions
|
| https://insect.sh/
| drbig wrote:
| It is a very versatile piece of software indeed. The minimal mode
| window is a great pop-up calculator that can do a lot, including
| conversions and working with physical units.
|
| Highly recommend!
| ceving wrote:
| Have Droid48 on my phone. I am infested and will never use a
| calculator without a stack.
| stonogo wrote:
| This program also supports rpn mode with a stack.
| VadimPR wrote:
| Are there prebuilt binaries available for macOS? I'm running the
| GTK version on an m1 and it always takes a few seconds to get
| going.
| integricho wrote:
| Not to criticise the application, but how realistic is that such
| an application weighs ~70MB?
| baal80spam wrote:
| I knew it would be fairly big but 70MB is ridiculous. I weep
| for today's software.
| pantalaimon wrote:
| qalculate-gtk is 3.7M on my system with libqalculate.so.22.17.4
| weighing in at 5.7M
| eviks wrote:
| oh, it's way more than that, on a Mac via brew it needs 600M QT
| and 50M gtk+3 and a couple of dozen M for other dependencies
| mappu wrote:
| I think the real issue here is the brew formula - the Qt
| runtime should be under 50MB (over if you include the
| chromium packages). Only the full development toolchain might
| be close to 600M and that clearly isn't needed here,
| dist-epoch wrote:
| Imagine if it was implemented in Electron, not in Qt. It would
| have been 300MB+ then.
| procone wrote:
| Are you really so strapped for disk space that 70MiB impacts
| your user experience?
|
| EDIT: The parent comment is disingenuous: the application isn't
| even 70MB. It's only 70MB if you download the windows edition
| with vendored libicu (unicode, 31MB) library. It weighs around
| ~20MB on linux distributions, which is insignificant.
| not_a_shill wrote:
| Even worse this kind of critique is actively cancerous to new
| developers if they actually think that people outside of HN
| care about this.
|
| Development productivity over everything. Features matter not
| app binary size.
| myankoo wrote:
| > Features matter not app binary size.
|
| *.exe in Everything = 11 586 objects on this machine.
|
| At 70MB a piece that would come out to ~800GB.
| wander_homer wrote:
| If you'd be running Qalculate on a Linux desktop system,
| where all the "heavy" dependencies (ICU, GTK or Qt) are
| already present and shared between all applications,
| Qalculate wouldn't require 70MB.
|
| Of course you could also provide a Win32 frontend to
| bring down the space requirements drastically and make it
| more Windows "native"; there's a well documented
| libqalculate for exactly those purposes.
| integricho wrote:
| I don't agree with this, not by a long shot, this kind of
| mindset is why we have such a cancerous proliferation of
| overbloated and slow software today and it's just getting
| worse and worse every day.
| not_a_shill wrote:
| So what? The tradeoff is that you make much less money
| with your mindset in exchange for impressing people on an
| internet forum.
| Beldin wrote:
| That mindset is why modern-day ultrabooks give the same
| practical performance as 15 years ago. All of the hardware
| advances have been gobbled up in the name of "developer
| productivity".
|
| Check (eg.) the Elevated 4k Demo winner to glimpse what
| modern computers are actually capable of in the hands of
| good developers.
| fluoridation wrote:
| Eh. Binary size by itself contributes very little to an
| application's performance.
|
| >Check (eg.) the Elevated 4k Demo winner to glimpse what
| modern computers are actually capable of in the hands of
| good developers.
|
| If all software were to be built using the same
| techniques the demo scene uses, nothing would ever get
| done, and if by chance a project does get released, no
| one would be able to maintain it afterwards. Let's not
| confuse art and engineering just because both use code as
| the medium.
| [deleted]
| dicytea wrote:
| An application's performance is orthogonal to its binary
| size.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| Not orthogonal, maybe diagonal.
|
| Sizecoding productions are an exception, because they
| tend to use really slow and memory hungry unpackers (can
| take up to gigabytes of RAM to do their job, for a 4k
| intro!), and they tend to lack all optimization
| techniques that could improve speed in exchange for more
| code (ex: culling, etc...). And flooding memory with
| millions of generated objects is no problem for these
| productions, as long as they are not stored in the
| executable.
|
| But in general, larger binaries are slower to load,
| simply because there is more bytes to copy from disk to
| RAM. And although it is not always the case (ex:
| sizecoding), it usually means a larger memory footprint,
| resulting in worse CPU cache efficiency, less memory for
| other apps and filesystem caches, etc... Also, large
| binaries tend to be a symptom of inefficient code, with
| too many abstraction layers, poor optimization, etc...
| Another very common reasons for bloated executables is
| that they bundle all their libraries, which means that
| they don't take advantage of shared libraries, requiring
| the OS to maintain multiple copies of the same library,
| possibly including some outdated or poorly optimized
| versions.
| FreeFull wrote:
| Looking at qalculate in Arch repos, libqalculate comes in at
| 14.94 MiB, and qalculate-qt at 3.37MiB, so 18.3 MiB total. If
| you're looking at the Appimage, the rest of the size would be
| from the libraries it depends on, like Qt/GTK+
| Aardwolf wrote:
| libqalculate is the mathematics part and the command line
| tool, while qt is GUI, so it's surprising the GUI part isn't
| the larger one of the two
| FreeFull wrote:
| About 6MB of it is the libqalculate.so.22.19.0 file,
| 1340KiB is .xml files that define all the
| units/functions/etc, and another 6MB is the documentation.
| wffurr wrote:
| So a smallish C++ static binary then.
| Cloudef wrote:
| You took my words
| LispSporks22 wrote:
| I use calc mode in Emacs for that kind of thing. Any idea how the
| two compare?
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| At this point just use a CAS or a TI calculator emulator.
| zzbn00 wrote:
| I also tend to just use a CAS, specifically maxima (either
| commandline, via emacs, via wxMaxima or via notebook, see
| https://github.com/robert-dodier/maxima-jupyter ). It has the
| plotting, great units etc, and also incredibly handy to do
| things like a taylor expansion around a point with no effort.
|
| If not maxima, then the old M-x calc will usually do the job
| [deleted]
| anagri wrote:
| do you have a Mac installer available?
|
| also you need a designer. the website looks like from the 2000s.
|
| thanks for sharing the app.
| pluijzer wrote:
| Yes this website needs a huge full screen video of models in
| business attire making calculations on a white board. When
| scrolling down I don't wish to find out what it does but would
| like some quotes from people saying how it changed their lives.
| Some transitions would be nice, the ones that make my fans
| spin, it gets cold here in the winter. Without it this website
| is barely usable.
| fuzztester wrote:
| Totally.
|
| Along the same lines, I'm nearly Goad Complete (TM) with an
| amazing SaaS called Append-Slash-Ess as a browser extension.
| It does what you would expect, at the click of a mouse or
| touch of a finger, no need of keyboards, which are so last
| century. We aim to obsolete them so we can rake in, oops,
| take on our mission of improving the world.
|
| And since our team is made up of (literally) outstanding ex-
| Ghroaglers, we'll only support the Ghroan browser, of course.
| And it'll detect and reject others, for the benefit of
| everyone.
| wffurr wrote:
| A quick click shows that it's available on home brew and Mac
| ports.
|
| I like the 2000s website style. It's functional, simple, and
| loads very fast.
| eviks wrote:
| what the quick click doesn't show is that brew will require
| ~700mb of dependencies and still installs as a cli app, not
| an GUI app bundle
| gapan wrote:
| Can you please point me to a website from the 2000s that looks
| like this? A wayback machine link would do. Because I
| definitely don't remember websites from the 2000s looking like
| that.
|
| The website's design is fine.
| akho wrote:
| what kind of satire is this
| doodpants wrote:
| So, you think the website would be better if it:
|
| - had low contrast text in a thin font
|
| - had pointless animations of content fading in as you scroll
| down
|
| - had a GDPR cookie consent popup
|
| - popped up an interstitial form asking for your email address
| so you could receive their newsletter, but only after you've
| had the site open for 30 seconds and were in the middle of
| trying to read it
|
| - was completely blank if you disabled JavaScript to try to
| avoid all of that nonsense
|
| No thank you; the current design is unironically _perfect_
| IMHO.
| eviks wrote:
| The "ultimate" calculator wouldn't use the same irrelevant-in-PC
| physical number buttons paradigm, taking up more than half of
| useful UI space
| zamadatix wrote:
| If every PC had a number pad I'd agree but efficiently using
| the top row number keys for both symbols and numbers is a tall
| expectation for most users to default to. Doubly so when you
| factor in holding shift and memorizing the operator locations
| in that row. A full point and click is a great default IMO,
| even on PC. I'd also argue in the case of devices with a
| numberpad you're unlikely to care as much about the wasted UI
| space anyways.
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| _shrug_ when I ran it the first time, the default GUI is a menu
| bar, entry area and history. Like:
| https://qalculate.github.io/images/qalculate-qt.png
| eviks wrote:
| and I got the screenshot advertized on the main page
| dTal wrote:
| Feel free to turn it off. The "ultimate" calculator wouldn't
| deny the _option_ to have the classic button paradigm...
| eviks wrote:
| That's not a good excuse - that would be an option, not the
| main UI, and if it weren't the default, than the dev could've
| realized that that space could be used in a much better way
| orbital-decay wrote:
| _> irrelevant-in-PC physical number buttons paradigm, taking up
| more than half of useful UI space_
|
| Calling it irrelevant is a bit like calling vim irrelevant.
| Classic calculators don't use REPL, they are designed to
| minimize the number of keypresses required to input your
| problem and explore it in the intuitive manner. They use highly
| efficient modal input languages (kind of like vim). Besides
| being efficient, these languages tend to have one-off commands
| you have to remember. Having a cheatsheet on your screen by
| default is useful for discoverability. In the algebraic
| calculator paradigm and their typical use cases (napkin math),
| having a history is not very useful (unlike in RPN where having
| the stack on the screen is nice).
|
| That said, Qalculate is weird in that it uses a REPL and the
| input line, which is much slower and clunkier than the
| algebraic input, but still tries to mimic a classic calculator.
| It's also slow to start. Not sure what's its use case, as it
| offers neither speed of a classic calculator nor the feature
| set of full-fledged math software.
| wander_homer wrote:
| > It's also slow to start.
|
| It's launching instantly here, with cold caches.
| eviks wrote:
| This doesn't make any sense, what kind of cheatsheet do you
| need to discover numbers on your keyboard???
|
| What kind of efficient modal input language is it where you
| have to move your hands off the keyboard and move your mouse
| to press a button to insert a number?
| orbital-decay wrote:
| Commands, not numbers. (what is the equivalent of +/- or
| 1/x?) Algebraic calculators don't have a lot of useful
| information to display when used properly, maybe the
| contents of memory registers but not much else. The screen
| estate can be used for anything, might as well be a
| cheatsheet.
|
| _> where you have to move your hands off the keyboard and
| move your mouse to press a button_
|
| Command cheatsheet, not number cheatsheet obviously
| (doubling as input won't hurt). Having numbers on it is
| excessive, as I already said Qalculate does it the weird
| way.
| eviks wrote:
| It sems you're still talking about some idealized vim-
| calculator instead of this app
|
| > Command cheatsheet, not number cheatsheet
|
| How do sin/cos/tan/e/p/i/ln/kg/mod buttons (that take
| most of the screen real estate ignoring the numbers) help
| you "cheat"? Do they help you discover sin/cos? Or is
| there some shortcut label that helps you remember how to
| toggle some extra options without using a mouse?
| squarefoot wrote:
| Obligatory mention for bc, a command line arbitrary precision
| calculator and language.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bc_(programming_language)
| ghkbrew wrote:
| Thanks, I'll stick with Rstudio.
| fuzztester wrote:
| RealCalc free version from Quartic on Android is not bad. Not
| comparing it to Qalculate.
|
| And it has a really cool physical-world electronic calculator
| look, hence the name.
| freedomben wrote:
| I use RealCalc on Android as well! Been handy to have for
| years. I bought the paid version and have been pleased with the
| purchase.
| michaelcampbell wrote:
| Definitely a purchase I have never regretted.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-08-09 23:01 UTC)