The point of the article is to show building a calculator requires a CAS, which should have been obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of how a calculator works.
The premise of the article is itself somewhat bogus, but I suppose there are programmers today who never had to work with a graphing calculator.
While RRA is an interesting approach, ultimately it wasn't sufficient.
Re-using an off-the-shelf CAS would have been the more practical solution, avoiding all the extra R&D on a novel number representation that wasn't quite sufficient to do the job.
The premise of the article is itself somewhat bogus, but I suppose there are programmers today who never had to work with a graphing calculator.
While RRA is an interesting approach, ultimately it wasn't sufficient.
Re-using an off-the-shelf CAS would have been the more practical solution, avoiding all the extra R&D on a novel number representation that wasn't quite sufficient to do the job.