BreakPoint
Rube Goldberg Code
I see code as shown by Jason (#4) and Darren (#2) all the time... Especially Darren's example.
Then again, I've been corrected by much simpler code while posting answers to this forum, too..
where's the smiley-guilty icon??? :womanwink:
Here is another one.
I included both states just incase you thought there may have been a goode reason hiding in the other state.
Here is another in the same VI
Ben
Message Edited by Ben on 01-23-2007 01:28 PM
Message Edited by Ben on 01-23-2007 01:31 PM
Message Edited by Ben on 01-23-2007 01:31 PM
@Ben wrote:
Here is another one.
We defined Rube Goldberg code as "exceedingly complex LabVIEW code that performs simple tasks in very indirect and convoluted ways" (see first post).
This (and some of the examples shown earlier) is now actually a Rube Goldberg NOP (or Rube Goldberg NOOP), freshly defined as:
"exceedingly complex LabVIEW code that performs absolutely nothing in very indirect and convoluted ways". 😄
(We could also define the construct as a WEQ (wire equivalent code), code that can be replaced with a plain wire without any change in functionality. ;))
First the legal stuff:
Warning: The code posted previously was written by "proffesionals". Do NOT attempt to write this code yourself.
Excellent point Christian. (Leave ti to one our academic types to recognize when we need a new term ).
Just to help me understand the differences...
WEQ's are identity operations and satisfy the condition
A = B
where:
A = Input
B =Output
Can we say the same about RG-NOP's?
Shane wrote;
"
Ben,
I have them all over some code I inherited from a previous employer at our company.
I honestly studied it for a while thinking ther HAS to be some significance to that code (Regarding the error cluster). I mean, come on.....
In the end I convinced myself I WAS actually sane (Something I feel I have to do on an almost daily basis) and it had no purpose whatsoever.
Shane.
"
That construct is all over this code I recieved. I wonder if it was the same developer or if they both came from the same LV school of thought.
After stepping outside the "Good Developer Box" for a second it hit me what that code was for!
It is a very handy way to make sure the sub-VI does not return an error. If the sub-VI is failing, just switch the boolean constant to false! 
The the very thought alone gave me the sensation of "finger-nails on the chalk board".
If this is indeed the case, then the code I posted is not RGC or RG-NOP or WEQ...
It's a hack!
Ben
Message Edited by altenbach on 01-24-2007 01:31 PM
