Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Reply

Rube Goldberg Code

Re: Rube Goldberg Code

[ Edited ]

What about the bit in the blue markup!!!

Message Edited by Ray Farmer on 01-25-2007 07:00 AM

Regards
Ray Farmer
Message 21 of 1,734 (11,817 Views)

Re: Rube Goldberg Code

You never know, the FALSE case might contain more code, e.g. a dialog box or subVI call. We cannot be sure from the picture alone, so I did not judge it.

Most likely you're right and there's nothing but a FALSE in the other case. Smiley Wink

Message 22 of 1,734 (11,814 Views)

Re: Rube Goldberg Code

WARNING - BAD PUN AHEAD!


shoneill wrote:

Somehow I always knew LabVIEW was referring to ME when it complained about "Insane Objects"......

Or in your case, that should be "InShane Objects"... Smiley Surprised

 

I can hear the "Boo"s all the way here.


___________________
Try to take over the world!
Message 23 of 1,734 (11,814 Views)

Re: Rube Goldberg Code

[ Edited ]

I am fixing new code...  You see what I'm up against...

Do I need to explain what's wrong with the array indexing in this example? (and I have better examples coming up Smiley Wink )

OK... I shouldn't say "wrong"... maybe that's too strong...  How about inefficient?  or simply Goldberged code, maybe??  Smiley Very Happy

 

 

Message Edited by JoeLabView on 01-25-200708:59 AM

Message Edited by JoeLabView on 01-25-2007 09:04 AM

______________________________________________________________________
Message 24 of 1,734 (11,803 Views)

Re: Rube Goldberg Code

Can't edit anymore... Smiley Sad

This is the image I wanted to post..

 

______________________________________________________________________
Message 25 of 1,734 (11,793 Views)

Re: Rube Goldberg Code

[ Edited ]

Here's a fun one..   

It compares elements in two array to see if there is a match..

I added the comment in the bottom Case Statement.  I should have removed it altogether.. Smiley Very Happy

Message Edited by JoeLabView on 01-25-2007 09:24 AM

______________________________________________________________________
Message 26 of 1,734 (11,653 Views)

Re: Rube Goldberg Code

Oh, these are good! The code is a bit hard to understand (especially in the second image) since we don't know what feeds the right shift register from the inside. There should be a law against straying from a horizontal line this much. Smiley Wink
 
I assume you're turrning all this into a "one-liner", just operating on the 2D array ("in place", of course). Smiley Happy
0 Kudos
Message 27 of 1,734 (11,643 Views)
Reply
0 Kudos

Re: Rube Goldberg Code



JoeLabView wrote:

   


That one took me a minute to figure out, but yes, assuming that there are no other cases, or that they are the same, then simply using the equel node should be enough. That is really confusing.

___________________
Try to take over the world!
Message 28 of 1,734 (11,639 Views)

Re: Rube Goldberg Code

[ Edited ]

It gets worse to the left of it.. I can't show it because of vi names... But imagine that what's in front of it came from a previous screen within a Stacked Sequential Structure.  Some of which have multiple levels of embedded frames!!

Here's one such sub-vi within that code.  Not that it's wrong... Just : WHY???  (PS: that is the entire content of the sub-vi)

 

Message Edited by JoeLabView on 01-25-2007 10:37 AM

______________________________________________________________________
Message 29 of 1,734 (11,633 Views)

Re: Rube Goldberg Code



altenbach wrote:
I assume you're turrning all this into a "one-liner", just operating on the 2D array ("in place", of course). Smiley Happy



Yes... but I too need to understand what's going on first!  Smiley Surprised
______________________________________________________________________
0 Kudos
Message 30 of 1,734 (11,633 Views)
Reply
0 Kudos