LabVIEW
LabVIEW Pros vs. Cons?
@Verywiseguy wrote:
Always a good sign when you can write an entire paper about how well the race went while your opponent still hasn't even finished the race.
It's like having a race and winning, then go to the after party to celebrate your victory. Then go home, having a relaxing weekend, then go to work the next week to hear that your opponent hadn't finished yet.
@Reciprocity wrote:
Also variability of signal conditioning outputs in response to various inputs or given a different criteria based on practical use requirements is not even possible with Labview.
(In summary, A sentence that is basically a concatenation of very ambiguous terms: "variability", "various", "different", "practical". None make any sense! 🐵
I have no idea what this sentence means but I am sure everything is possible in LabVIEW. It is a full featured programming environment. And if these responses need to be very fast, you could run them on FPGA, also directly programmed in LabVIEW. 😄
@Reciprocity wrote:
Also variability of signal conditioning outputs in response to various inputs or given a different criteria based on practical use requirements is not even possible with Labview.
This sounds either like:
- Different inputs give different outputs, and you're disappointed by this... or
- You don't know how to choose an algorithm based on an input. I'd suggest dynamic dispatch, but maybe a Case Structure would do, depending on the problem. What's the text equivalent you'd like to emulate/replicate?
If you vote for my idea (Set a target version when saving) and it gets implemented, you could just install the newest LabVIEW and be happy 🙂
Even if it isn't implemented, you can still do this with Save for Previous... but that's more tedious.
It's true (perhaps sadly) that you can't do much with G code without the LabVIEW IDE (of at least some version) installed, and that the installation is fairly large, but I'd guess most large C++/C# projects don't use only Notepad. MSVC + Visual Studio is a fairly large installation, so is Eclipse (and that doesn't, afaik, ship with a compiler?).
It's true for a hello world application that you can do it in C with much less installed code (probably just a stdlib, gcc or equivalent and a few lines of text, along with a compilation command). But I'd bet I can write it in LabVIEW faster 🙂 (assuming we don't count the 12000 hours installing LabVIEW...)
@BigApple0 wrote:
One thing I like about writing in text code is that I can use any text editor to view my code. I don't have to screw around with figuring out and installing the correct version of LV. Something that is a complete waste of time and really annoying.
I do both. Text coding has advantages but if you ever plan on writing a full featured production system in C you can be sure to not get it running reliably 24/7.
Some people hate graphic representation and are happier with text. They probably also prefer a text book description about a system than a schematic design. It’s about how your brain cells are wired and if you are that way that is fine. It doesn’t mean that everybody is like that.
I come from electrical hardware engineering and found computer programming very interesting but also felt that having to worry about placing semicolons and such exactly right to get the damn compiler stop complaining a pretty frustrating exercise.
When I saw LabVIEW for the first time it was like: Wow it’s like a schematic design but instead of describing hardware it describes what the computer should do. It made total sense.
interestingly some years later the circle got closed when LabVIEW also learned to program FPGA. 😀
As to just using Notepad for programming, at least use Notepad++. 😋
And I definitely wouldn’t call Visual Studio a small installation either. They can match the LabVIEW installation easily and still not support realtime, or FPGA programming. Other compiler IDEs aren’t that much better.
Sure if you stay on Linux you can perfectly program with just vi and gcc installed, but convenient is something
else. 😀
I’m not saying that there isn’t (a lot of) room to improve the LabVIEW installation experience. 😀
And the replacement of MSI technology with nipm feels a lot like fighting the devil with the belzebub. Just as slow and complicated with less functionality and more quirks!
