You may want to check out:<p>The whole calculator running in a browser, thanks to emscripten : <a href="https://www.numworks.com/simulator/" rel="nofollow">https://www.numworks.com/simulator/</a><p>An interactive PCB viewer, in the browser again : <a href="https://www.numworks.com/resources/engineering/hardware/electrical/pcb/" rel="nofollow">https://www.numworks.com/resources/engineering/hardware/elec...</a><p>Full schematics <a href="https://www.numworks.com/resources/engineering/hardware/electrical/schematics/" rel="nofollow">https://www.numworks.com/resources/engineering/hardware/elec...</a><p>And of course the whole source code to the operating system, <a href="https://github.com/numworks/epsilon" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/numworks/epsilon</a>
It should be pointed out that this is Micropython, not the Python that you are probably used to. Micropython is great stuff, I’m a huge fan, but it is different from CPython in noticeable ways.<p>They seem to have simply copied a source snapshot over; I’m not sure what that means for incorporating updates and fixes to the Python system. Maybe they needed a fork for some reason. I do wish their documentation gave a little more credit to the Micropython project.
If you care about calculation/typing efficiency, you might also want to check out RPN (reverse polish notation).<p>I am recommending the HP 35s. Once you are used to the notation, it is a real pleasure, not only for old-school advocates like me. Added bonus: you will gain respect for stack-based languages like Forth, Factor etc.
It's always amazed me how, in 2018, TI calculators with software and hardware from 10 years ago still cost $100+ dollars [0] and command a near monopoly in US secondary schools (which, I suppose, is why they still cost that much). For that price you can get a significantly more powerful and functional mobile phone [1] (see 24K of ram vs. 2GB, 96x64 screen vs. 720 x 1280)!<p>The space needs competition, and I hope Numworks gives TI a run for their money (the calculator is even allowed on the big standard exams), but schools are so standardized on TI calculators (and generally slow-moving) that change will be hard. Casio has also tried to break into this space with significantly cheaper calculators (which are also allowed on standardized exams), but they have failed to gain significant traction so far.<p>A relevant XKCD (of course): <a href="https://xkcd.com/768/" rel="nofollow">https://xkcd.com/768/</a><p>A related piece of journalism: <a href="https://wapo.st/1Cl0Vyf" rel="nofollow">https://wapo.st/1Cl0Vyf</a><p>[0]: <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0001EMM0G/" rel="nofollow">https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0001EMM0G/</a><p>[1]: <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01H2E0KVA/" rel="nofollow">https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01H2E0KVA/</a>
It's not open source; the Hacker News headline is wrong. The Numworks web site does not claim it's open source, by the way -- the problem is only in the headline here. The license is Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial ShareAlike (CC-BY-NC-SA), and the presence of the "NonCommercial" clause makes it unambiguously non-open-source. If that clause were not present, CC-BY-SA would still be an odd license to use for software anyway, but because of the NC clause we never get to that issue.
Personally I feel like clamshell design would make lots of sense for these more advanced calculators. At the same footprint you could have lot bigger screen, and more/bigger buttons. As an added bonus the screen would be more readable when sitting on a desk. I wouldn't think the marginally added thikness would impact much something thats being carried around in backbacks most of time anyways.<p>For some reason practically no calculators seem to have used clamshell design. Does anyone know why?<p>Closest example I know of would be HP 200LX, but it is a full-blown computer so it doesn't fit the requirements for education market. Looking at this side by side picture with a graphing calculator, it is not difficult to imagine the calculator keys being transplanted to 200LX to make a nifty new device.<p><a href="https://cdn.pbrd.co/images/HFcfXoM.png" rel="nofollow">https://cdn.pbrd.co/images/HFcfXoM.png</a>
While the calculator itself seems really cool, I'm really perplexed by this design.<p>I see little point to advertising it as something that can input and execute python if it takes you at least 5 minutes to type<p>`for i in range(10): print(i)`
Virtually everyone that would own one of these already has a smartphone with more computational power, where an app can be made, or already exists, that does all of these functions or more.<p>Is the only reason for this to exist for use on a standardized test?
"It is also permitted for use on the SAT by the College Board starting with the August 2018 administration."<p>That's ridiculous. Privatized standard testing seems like a bad deal for folks who can't afford these expensive calculators.