Category talk:TI-83 BASIC
I'm conflicted about this edit. A mention of its relationship with TI-85 BASIC seems useful, but talking about the "chief complaint" of its lacking function calls seems out of place, but suggests that putting each language's omitted task category as a subcat might be useful. The references to C and C++ seem completely out of place. I don't want to fall into the trap of "citation needed" or forcing a neutral point of view, but the edit seems malicious towards the language. How can something like this be best addressed? --Michael Mol 22:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, sorry I'm still a little new to Rosetta Code and not sure if this goes here, but I was the user that edited the TI-83 BASIC article. First off, I can't speak for its relationship with TI-85 BASIC, or if that language even exists, but I was talking about its relationship with TI-89 BASIC. Secondly, I really didn't mean the article to be malicious, "TI-83 BASIC" is a fantastic portable language. My referencing C and C++ were to show how, even though it is a relatively small language in practical uses, it contains major elements of larger languages. The "chief complaint" can be cited if needed (TI-83 BASIC code forums), however its main purpose was to show that while it contains major elements of large languages (see above) it is still not the same as them. I hope this explanation cleared some things up, and I hope that my additions to the TI-83 BASIC summary and code examples helped.
Should we mention that the TI-84/+/SE calculators have a few new commands?