The whole calculator running in a browser, thanks to emscripten : https://www.numworks.com/simulator/
An interactive PCB viewer, in the browser again : https://www.numworks.com/resources/engineering/hardware/elec...
Full schematics https://www.numworks.com/resources/engineering/hardware/elec...
And of course the whole source code to the operating system, https://github.com/numworks/epsilon
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.
Concur on the credit thing though.
(Admittedly, I didn’t spend a lot of time nosing around Numwork’s source repo. I have spent a lot of time nosing around the Micropython repo to do my own tweaked builds.)
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.
If you are a grown-up children like me and just want a pretty expensive toy, I can recommend the SwissMicros DM42  (I'm not related to them in any way, just a happy customer). The made an adaptation of the HP42s for the modern world: «34 decimal digits of precision, with exponents ranging from -6143 to +6144», based on the excellent Thomas Okken's Free42 , big and nice screen, USB connection for loading/saving programs, save and restore of the calculator state, and so on!
And being based on Free42 you can get the emulator on your phone and share the programs with the calculator. You then have the same "calculator" everytime with you, no need to get used to another program/interface on your phone.
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.
A relevant XKCD (of course): https://xkcd.com/768/
A related piece of journalism: https://wapo.st/1Cl0Vyf
Here is a good article about the how TI goes after the teachers:
It's an unsolvable problem they created there.
That was done in part due to intentional (and damaging, if ultimately unsuccessful) efforts to undermine the meaning of terms like 'Free Software' by Microsoft back when the FSF was a fledgling movement and Microsoft was an evil empire.
I don't mean to imply negative things about the company. The license is still a heck of a lot better than fully proprietary -- I love the product in part for that reason -- but it's definitely not 'open source' or 'free software' as the headline implies.
(I don't think the company claims it is either)
But this isn't a trademark issue. No one has trademarked the word "carrots" either, but if someone were to sell pencils under the label "carrots", people would be understandably confused and annoyed.
It's the same thing here: don't call it open source if it's not. The software industry relies on that term having a specific, well-defined meaning. That meaning is widely agreed on, which, again, is why Numworks themselves is not claiming their stuff is open source.
But the important question is, who is using "open source" to mean the definition I gave earlier? The answer is: pretty much everyone. Not just the Open Source Initiative (opensource.org) and the Free Software Foundation, but also: the Wikimedia Foundation, Creative Commons, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, all government agencies who have formally defined the term (at least as far as I've seen), also every major tech firm as far as I can tell, including Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Yahoo, Samsung, Huawei, ... this list could go on for a very, very long time :-). Basically, it's everyone.
Notice that that list includes Creative Commons -- that is, the organization that wrote the particular license that Numworks is using agrees that that license is not open source. That's a pretty clear sign, I think :-).
And, of course, Numworks themselves are careful not to call their stuff "open source" anywhere. You can bet that they would use that term if they felt they could. It has great marketing karma; everyone loves to advertise their stuff as "open source". And yet Numworks doesn't -- because they know a lot of hackers would come down on them like a ton of bricks if they tried to make that claim.
To a first approximation, pretty much every organization that produces or procures software use the term "open source" to mean the definition that the Open Source Initiative originally established.
You can claim that "open source" means something else, if you want, in the same way that you can claim that the word "broccoli" or "red" means something different from what most other people mean by those words. For you, your meaning will be correct, in your own private language.
But what I'm saying is, when the phrase "open source" appears in a Hacker News headline, most people will interpret it in the way I described. When the vast majority of people intepreret a word or phrase as having a certain meaning -- and especially when it's a term of art in a profession and all the specialists, lawyers, policy makers, etc in that profession agree on the meaning of the term -- then it's fair to say that that is what the term "means".
It indeed does make sense to commercialize. Nobody said otherwise. But making good sense does not make a software open source. Releasing a software under an open source license makes a software open source. CC-BY-NC-SA is not such a license.
If the headline mistakenly said "Lisp-compatible" instead of "Python-compatible", you wouldn't say "Oh, that's just a semantic quibble", right? You'd say it's wrong, flat out. The programming language it's compatible with is Python, not Lisp, so saying Lisp would just be inaccurate. (And they're both English words -- neither term is trademarked, obviously, and they both have meanings unrelated to their meanings in the realm of programming languages.)
Saying this is "open source" is wrong in exactly the same sense. The term has a settled meaning in the software world. The reason "non-commercial usage is incompatible with all the major open-source licenses", as you say, is that it is by definition incompatible with all open source licenses. Because "open source" means freedom for use for any purpose, including commercial purposes.
This is not merely a semantic quibble any more than any other wrong use of a word is a semantic quibble. It's wrong in the normal way that language usage can be wrong.
Never in the history of free software or open source software from the release of Donald Knuth's TeX in 1979, to the birth of FSF in 1985, or the formalization of OSD in 1998 was it ever acceptable to forbid commercial usage in something that is known as open source.
The corruption of the word "open source" to mean anything with source code available on GitHub under a non-commercial license is very recent and does not reflect the true origin or meaning of the word "open source".
The implication that CC-BY-NC-SA could be open source seems to be your belief which is not based on facts.
While I agree with your point, I'm not sure the alleged history supports it very well. It's a pretty ugly piece of the movement's history.
Now, that was two decades ago, those people are gone, and OSI is a very nice, good, and friendly organization today.
This license is a non-starter...
For some reason practically no calculators seem to have used clamshell design. Does anyone know why?
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.
I had a 28C, 95LX and 200LX. The modern equivalent of the latter would be the Planet Gemini.
There was a pocket computer from a slightly earlier era http://pocket.free.fr/html/casio/fx-5200p_e.html
Trying to find an image of those I stumbled across the fx-9860G Slim that seems to be current: https://www.casio.com/resource/images/press/fx-9860gslim_pre...
There was also apparently fx-7500G in somewhat similar form-factor.
Of course the layout needs bit optimization instead of literally just copy-pasting the existing one.
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
`for i in range(10): print(i)`
Writing smaller programs (at least on a Casio calculator) isn’t actually that bad once you get used to the layout and menus.
Is the only reason for this to exist for use on a standardized test?
Have a look at the Swiss Micros DM-42L, it's a thing of beauty.
That's ridiculous. Privatized standard testing seems like a bad deal for folks who can't afford these expensive calculators.