Rube Goldberg Code

[smercurio_fc]

HOLY COW! 


Message Edited by smercurio_fc on 11-19-2007 09:44 AM

[altenbach]

But you have to admit that it would scale very well on a massively multiCPU system. 😮

I am impressed how many times it goes to dynamic data and back for no reason at all. Even that last flipflop from dynamic-to array-to wavefirm. What would VI analyzer say?

BTW:
CC, your solution could be made a little bit more compact by eliminating the "array size+Initialize array" construct on top. Just use a plain multiply (multiply the array by zero). 😉

[chilly_charly]

---

altenbach a écrit: ... CC, your solution could be made a little bit more compact by eliminating the "array size+Initialize array" construct on top. Just use a plain multiply (multiply the array by zero). 😉

---

Nice ! I forgot this trick. I think I have lost part of my mind trying to understand what was going on in that mess... :D:D:D

[altenbach]

Notice that I said "more compact". It might be a tiny little bit slower, but I have not done any systematic comparison. 😉

You can even eliminate the diagram constant by subtracting the array from itself but that would start to get into the range of obfuscated code.. 😮

[altenbach]

---

chilly charly wrote:

Nice ! I forgot this trick. I think I have lost part of my mind trying to understand what was going on in that mess... :D:D:D

---

You still need to be careful with this trick. 🙂

Here we have integers, so there won't be a problem. However, IF you are dealing with floating point AND some of the array elements are NaN, Inf, or -Inf, you'll end up with NaNs in the initialized array. So, the result can be different between the two methods. This may, or may not, be acceptable. 🙂

[RayFarmer]

But look at the art work

[Ray.R]

Must have gone to the same coding school as whoever coded the stuff I was fixing a year ago..  😄

I still have sight problems since then.  When asked to fix the next code....  well... let's just say other things came up  LOL!!!! 😄

[AnalogKid2DigitalMan]

Video Vertigo, I feel ill after scrolling down that BD.

[altenbach]

Running a PID loop every 10ms. (from http://forums.ni.com/ni/board/message?board.id=170&thread.id=285760)

1. Seems we need to do every comparison twice, each instance with a fresh local of the same variable. (one for the case, one for the LED) 🙂
2. The terminal of the 6 identical local most likely gets written way after all the locals are read by the code, so we have one big race condition. (which in this case fortunately clears up more or less after 10ms, but why!)

Message Edited by altenbach on 11-21-2007 01:36 PM

[Gabi1]

i had to look at some (very) old code this morning.

and look what i found out:

the untouchable! i could kill the guy who did that. and he is right now sitting in my office! on my chair! (hum....i wander who that is...)

Message Edited by Gabi1 on 12-12-2007 10:13 AM