⚠️ Warning: This is a draft ⚠️
This means it might contain formatting issues, incorrect code, conceptual problems, or other severe issues.
If you want to help to improve and eventually enable this page, please fork RosettaGit's repository and open a merge request on GitHub.
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.
== TI-84 BASIC ==
Should we mention that the TI-84/+/SE calculators have a few new commands?