BreakPoint
Frustrating Threads
@K C wrote:
No slating from me either…… Don’t even know what it exactly means.
So much for my English.
I agree with Shane. I do not help much here but helping someone can be rewarding.
Helping someone to get his/her work done without any efforts from the outer side is frustrating.
That someone uses bad English is OK by me. It is the only way I can answer.
Kees
Oyester and Kevin,
Thanks for voicing your thoughts. We really need to here your voices. The last thing I would want to see happen is the community break-dwon into "us vs them". Maybe its a good time to comment.
I think it may have been Chandi that said something like (please post the correct version if you know it!)
"Be the change that you would like to see in the world."
When I was fresh into LV coming from C, I was involved two very big disasters.
1) Global Variables
Huge app with big money potential failed due to using Globals to communicate resulting in memory abuse and race conditions.
2) Memory Usage
Disregard for how LV allocated memory resulted in app blowing up when scaled up for production use.
I wish someone had jumped on me early in those projects and told me about what I was getting myself into. So speaking for myself, if I jump on you or others about coding styles global usage etc. I am doing so in an attempt to spare you the pain I experienced and to let you know there is a better way. Please excuse our sometime clumsy attempts at helping.
Ben
How about blaming LabVIEW for not implementing the EXACT combination of features required to implement a software based on some completely ridiculous customer requests on not wanting to branch wires. 
HERE.
I seriously want to just leave the forums sometimes when trying to have a proper discussion with these guys. It's clear his mind is already made up and he's not willing to actually consider what people are telling him. On top of that he's blindly defending the utterly silly demand from his "customers" that their code working with objects whould require no wire branches!! All in the interest of "proper OOP design".
I need more coffee.
@Intaris wrote:
How about blaming LabVIEW for not implementing the EXACT combination of features required to implement a software based on some completely ridiculous customer requests on not wanting to branch wires.
HERE.
I seriously want to just leave the forums sometimes when trying to have a proper discussion with these guys. It's clear his mind is already made up and he's not willing to actually consider what people are telling him. On top of that he's blindly defending the utterly silly demand from his "customers" that their code working with objects whould require no wire branches!! All in the interest of "proper OOP design".
I need more coffee.
Ah, yes. Another thread I'm involved in. After all, I gave a pretty good (and much more correct) option (or so I thought 
)
@for(imstuck) wrote:
@JÞB wrote:
@for(imstuck) wrote:
What did you need to see the code for anyway? ARRGH! llbs!
SpoilerIt do be talk like a pie-airate day mateys. "Arrgh" be acceptable!
I was not frustrated with the problem itself, but was frustrated trying to explain to a particular member that his responses were not answering at all what the OP was asking.
I often found that certain person to just be impossible. I have explained to him before that their solution just doesn't work or is completely off topic and he just shoots back saying that it is appropriate, etc, etc. The worst part is he is trying to imitate the great Altenbach.
