I'm conflicted about [http://rosettacode.org/mw/index.php?title=Category:TI-83_BASIC&diff=prev&oldid=84585 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? --[[User:Short Circuit|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.

PrgmEnd,

[[User:ShinigamiCooper|Ron Haada]]

== TI-84 BASIC ==

Should we mention that the TI-84/+/SE calculators have a few new commands?