Rube Goldberg Code

[wiebe@CARYA]

---

@Jacobson-ni wrote:

---

wiebe@CARYAwiebe@CARAYA wrote:

Not bad, not bad at all. It saves a click to see what's in the other case, to make sure or to find out it's empty!

---

Just hope you don't lose errors down stream by not handling the case of a for loop executing 0 times.

---

Same can happen in a case. Use default instead of wiring through, and the error is lost. In a For Loop, a shift register. Exactly the same: if you write bad code, you get bad results.

[Ben]

---

wiebe@CARYA wrote:

---

@BertMcMahan wrote:

While this isn't exactly OVERLY complicated, it's something I shamefully admit to doing when I first started teaching myself LV. I didn't know about Case structures, and needed something to execute or not based on a boolean, so here's my janky boolean solution:

---

Not bad, not bad at all. It saves a click to see what's in the other case, to make sure or to find out it's empty!

---

I have not investigated it recently but NI did have a Patent on a 3-D diagram that provided your perspective of the diagram was right, you would be able get a glimpse of more than one case at a single glance.

Ben

[RavensFan]

True greater than a boolean?  I had to run some test code to find out that it gives the same result as a NOT.

Seen here.

[wiebe@CARYA]

---

@RavensFan wrote:

True greater than a boolean?  I had to run some test code to find out that it gives the same result as a NOT.

---

And the NOT can of course be implemented as invert on the compound AND.

[altenbach]

So we have a case structure (boolean selector) where the contents of the two cases are identical, differing only by a boolean diagram constant that we already have. (See here)

I don't think that case structure is needed at all!

[altenbach]

Rube Goldberg code often looks complicated, so for something a little easier to look at, here's deceptively simple Rube Goldberg code.

(The poster claims 1 year "LabVIEW experience", whatever that means. Maybe in another few years he might stumble across the stop button by accident :o. We just need to be patient! :D)

(Seen here)

[JÞB]

---

@altenbach wrote:

Rube Goldberg code often looks complicated, so for something a little easier to look at, here's deceptively simple Rube Goldberg code.

(The poster claims 1 year "LabVIEW experience", whatever that means. Maybe in another few years he might stumble across the stop button by accident :o. We just need to be patient! :D)

(Seen here)

---

Really Christian,   haven't you ever seen the Abort Button?  😄

Damnit it's hard to type in a phone when you're screen is covered in coffee because you forgot to swallow before reading a post

[altenbach]

---

@JÞB wrote:

---

@altenbach wrote:

Rube Goldberg code often looks complicated, so for something a little easier to look at, here's deceptively simple Rube Goldberg code.

(The poster claims 1 year "LabVIEW experience", whatever that means. Maybe in another few years he might stumble across the stop button by accident :o. We just need to be patient! :D)

(Seen here)

---

Really Christian,   haven't you ever seen the Abort Button?  😄

---

There's even a button on my computer case that seems to work just fine if I press it long enough. 😄

[JÞB]

Seen on a l

LabVIEW thread I recently replied to. 

Kudos for a link and picture 

I know, let's build all of these scalar values into an array then IMITIATLY wire it directly into an index array to get the scalar values back.  Look no wire branches.

[RTSLVU]

---

@altenbach wrote:

Rube Goldberg code often looks complicated, so for something a little easier to look at, here's deceptively simple Rube Goldberg code.

(The poster claims 1 year "LabVIEW experience", whatever that means. Maybe in another few years he might stumble across the stop button by accident :o. We just need to be patient! :D)

(Seen here)

---

What's the matter?

Is that "X" in the upper right hand corner of the window not a good enough stop button for you? 😛