BreakPoint
Rube Goldberg Code
Well, I can see that for people that have been on this forum for a while there's no problem, but for new people, they could take it the wrong way. Anyways, my comments where just meant as a concern, nothing more
We all see the odd piece of hair raising code - like some of the recent posts, but I do think that some of the snippets called out as Heath Robinson constructs are just small optimisations rather than a case full blown over-engineering.
- Boolean==True? Could be overlooked remenants of refactored code
- Dividing by zero to generate a NaN constant; it isn't entirely obvious you can just enter NaN. The compiler will convert it to a NaN constant anyway; nothing lost and nothing gained.
And so on.
Why does it need a subVI and two sub-subVIs (= 3 VIs!) to basically implement the following code functionality ????
If you don't believe me, have a look at the UI challenge template 😄 Here's the original.
Sure, the original is better documented (especially all the "multiplies"! ;)) , modularized, and structured. 😄
Nicely documented but I understood what the multiply did the first time. I was pretty sure that the other two did the same function as the first but it is nice to see how they hammer it in. Now I will never forget what the function with the multiplication symbol on it does! 
@Steve Chandler wrote:
Nicely documented but I understood what the multiply did the first time. I was pretty sure that the other two did the same function as the first but it is nice to see how they hammer it in. Now I will never forget what the function with the multiplication symbol on it does!
That was done for text-based programmers so they wouldn't be all confused.
@smercurio_fc wrote:
That was done for text-based programmers so they wouldn't be all confused.
But it is not complete. Shouldn't the diagram constant have a label with "one half". 😄
@smercurio_fc wrote:
That was done for text-based programmers so they wouldn't be all confused.
You mean "normal" programmers. 
@broken Arrow wrote:
@smercurio_fc wrote:
That was done for text-based programmers so they wouldn't be all confused.
You mean "normal" programmers.
Maybe he means "real" programmers.
(I am just bitter because I wrote some beautiful code for the other challenge in G and it is slower than the totally lame brute force code I wrote in C just for the heck of it. )
