You still could have implemented SpeedCrunch :)

[0skari]

Some basic functionalities that Abicus is missing:

Compare...

[lumilla]

Yeah. I actually messaged YTL about this. Their response was, well, see for yourself.

(Also, I'm working on making Abicus more like SpeedCrunch. However, nobody seems to actually be working actively on Abicus, so I wouldn't hold my breath. Also it seems like Reaktor Oy is the one developing Abicus, not YTL.

)

[0skari]

Haha. Well, shit. @J3r0github, Tone of the response you received was admittedly at least somewhat irritated. Also the response was partly off-topic. The issue for me (or any other student) is not that any unnecessary features would be added to Abitti digital exam environment. From the student’s perspective it is about not taking away the features that already work. Still, I hope we can trust that they have some valid reason to replace the calculator with a clumsier version at every level. Thank you for your active involvement, let’s hope that someday a change will come...

[mplattu]

(As stated in the README, we don't generally follow the issues in our GitHub repos. Please send your feedback to Abitti support to get heard!)

I have been waiting response for my email, and it looks like I the discussion was moved here. No problem with that.

As discussed in another issue the Abicus is not a drop-in replacement for SpeedCrunch, Python, Perl, JavaScript or any of the calculators/scripting languages openly or silently available in the Abitti 1. The idea of Abicus calculator as the only calculator in math phase A is exactly “taking away the features that already work” to reach the original goal of the two-phase math exam.

As mentioned in the referenced issue, the CAS calculators are available in the chemistry, physics and math exam (phase B). Since the existing tools can be used to do similar calculations, the obvious question is why yet another tool is needed.

Some of the use cases above utilise the constants which are available in this particular tools (e.g. speed of light). The exam system currently has three reference tables containing these values. The item authors and censors dislike the idea of adding versions containing similar data. Although you could think that for example the speed of light is constant across the tables, this is not the case as errors might occurs. In some rare cases these erroneous constants may make the results wrong or even the whole item impossible to solve. To minimise this, the authors would like to see the number of references to decline, not to increase.

I'm leaving the issue open for further comments. However, don't expect me or other MEB staff to participate, since we're just now busy with Abitti 2 rollout.

[0skari]

Thank you for the detailed response – your reasoning makes a lot of sense this hopefully clears things out for people. I understand the goal behind simplifying the tools available in phase A and acknowledge the effort to reduce potential errors caused by inconsistent reference data. Hopefully, both students and teachers will adapt to Abicus over time.