Add native support for TOML file format

[TiTou]

V1.0 of TOML was recently released : https://github.com/toml-lang/toml/wiki

There is an MIT Licensed open source project here : https://github.com/erdosmiller/lv-toml

It's a nice starting point, but :

- it's not complete

- it's based of v0.4 of TOML

- it not maintained as stated here : https://lavag.org/topic/21972-anyone-using-toml-files/?do=findComment&comment=135193

- it's not native

[wiebe@CARYA]

It's very close to config files. It would not be that hard to convert an ini file library to a TOML library.

Nice that this has a spec, in contrast with the ini files, which doesn't.

I think this could be a community effort.

I don't think it's a good idea to keep adding libraries to LabVIEW's core. What 'native support' is required? Is there anything that needs to be added to LabVIEW that we can't do in VIs or VIMs?

[TiTou]

Well... I agree, and if you read the discussion on LAVA, Porter said he might start a new project to do that

Not adding too much to the LabVIEW core is something I also agree with.

By "native support" I don't mean "primitives", I mean "without external resources like dll or .net stuff".

What I would love is for NI to take the lead on some of these open source project or at least dedicate some resources to work on these open source / community projects.

NIWeek after NIWeek we here the top management praising the great work done by the community, nice that they acknowledge it, nicer to dedicate some NI resources to help.

I know some NI employees do participate to the community effort and it's great, I don't see NI communicating a lot on that, why?

[wiebe@CARYA]

I have a config library myself that could be adapted (GitHub: Configuration File Library for LabVIEW). It seems to me 70% of the work is there. Some complexity could actually go, as it's just there to provide flexibility to compensate the lack of a ini file spec.

Just glimpsing at the spec, I'd say it would be a few weeks to fully realize this library. But like NI, at some point money has to be made. LabVIEW community efforts happen despite this. I'd work on this if I needed it, and then probably release it at some point. Partially finished of course, because that last 20% can take 80% of the time. It's hard to justify working on that without monetary reward, while I actually have to work on projects that do pay the bills.

GCentral has plans to provide some kind of crowdfunding facility. Projects like this would fit in there really well... I just hope a lot of people are willing to a little. I've almost collected enough money with my open source projects to pay for 1 beer. So I'm hopeful, but doubtful...

[TiTou]

I didn't know GCentral had plans for crowdfunding, I think it's a good idea and I'd be happy to send a few bitcoins (well, micro/nano-bitcoins actually) to those sharing their packages.

Again, in the end, the community stuff available benefits to NI, they should reward the community with more than just a round of applause at NIWeek's keynote.

[crossrulz]

I am also of the opinion that libraries like this belong in the open-source realm.  But perhaps a release package could be in the repository for the LabVIEW version, much like a toolkit to make it discoverable.