Abort Button Not Working

[paul_cardinale]

---

@RTSLVU wrote:

I find a "State Machine" architecture works for 99% of the programs I write.

---

Ugh!  While it's generally true that 'a <fill-in-the-blank-with-anything> architecture> can work in 99% of your programs', anyone who uses the same architecture 99% of the time is probably writing a lot of poor code.

[RTSLVU]

---

@paul_cardinale wrote:

---

@RTSLVU wrote:

I find a "State Machine" architecture works for 99% of the programs I write.

---

Ugh!  While it's generally true that 'a <fill-in-the-blank-with-anything> architecture> can work in 99% of your programs', anyone who uses the same architecture 99% of the time is probably writing a lot of poor code.

---

Meh... 99% of my programs are data logging and instrument control.

A state machine is the perfect fit unless I need high speed acquisition, then it's a producer/consumer, but the consumer loop will probably still have a state machine inside it. 😛

[billko]

---

@paul_cardinale wrote:

---

@RTSLVU wrote:

I find a "State Machine" architecture works for 99% of the programs I write.

---

Ugh!  While it's generally true that 'a <fill-in-the-blank-with-anything> architecture> can work in 99% of your programs', anyone who uses the same architecture 99% of the time is probably writing a lot of poor code.

---

I would say that is only strictly true if 99% of your projects are 99% different from each other.  I would say that 99% of the time, generalization isn't the best thing.  😉

[RTSLVU]

---

@billko wrote:

---

@paul_cardinale wrote:

---

@RTSLVU wrote:

I find a "State Machine" architecture works for 99% of the programs I write.

---

Ugh!  While it's generally true that 'a <fill-in-the-blank-with-anything> architecture> can work in 99% of your programs', anyone who uses the same architecture 99% of the time is probably writing a lot of poor code.

---

I would say that is only strictly true if 99% of your projects are 99% different from each other.  I would say that 99% of the time, generalization isn't the best thing.  😉

---

No sense reinventing the wheel.

[RTSLVU]

---

@cy... wrote:

---

@RTSLVU

---

adding a timeout on those subVI may improve the responsiveness of the abort. 

also wondering why: sequentially? race conditions?

---

Over use of sequence structures is a huge sign that the programer did not understand the "Data Flow" concept LabVIEW programming is based on. 

[matt_physics]

Thanks for the replies everyone.  For some reason it started mysteriously working again. I'll return to this if there are any more problems.