LabVIEW
LabVIEW vs. Python for Test Automation
@daphilli wrote:Prior to LabVIEW 8.6, I favored C++. But, after NI added OOP, VI Server and recursion, LabVIEW became viable for my purposes. E
I'm pretty sure VI Server and recursion have been in LabVIEW since LV4.
You probably refer to the VI Server extension with control references (allowing property nodes and method nodes, replacing attribute nodes that didn't have references) and the improved recursion (where a VI can call itself directly without the need to use VI Server).
I agree things got much easier.
Search LabVIEW like a graph!
@rolfk wrote:
@Jay14159265 wrote:
I think that if LabVIEW does not get AI code generation it will soon ( if not already) fall behind text based languages in speed of development.
Ever heard of Fuzzy logic? It was the BIG thing some 20 to 25 years ago, and it seemed that you could not sell a coffee machine or washing machine anymore if there wasn't a "uses Fuzzy logic for a better cleaning result (or better tasting coffee)" label on it. There also frequently came the argument that it would preserve energy and detergents as it only was using just the right amount of energy and time.
Fuzzy logic was in principle just a bit of an adaptive algorithm and a pretty crude one at that too. More adaptable than a pure on/off control, but all of course depended on the sensors, if they were even present. Quite frequently that fuzzy logic was just a little control loop somewhere in the firmware to be able to claim that the device used this new great super power technology, and sometimes it was just a label put on the device anyways, freely according to the motto "paper is very patient" and who in the world would ever go to the effort to take apart a device to make sure it actually contained this super tech?
I'm not saying that AI is without any merits. But much of it is hype anyways, and a self supporting hype at that. Someone found out this new invisible cloth and everybody is wanting to jump on the bandwagon to gain a bit of profit too, and nobody so far has dared to say: "But he is not wearing any clothes!"
IIRC, Fuzzy logic had one big disadvantage: it was hard to prove that it worked or worked correctly.
Multiply that uncertainty by 100, than square the results. That's where AI's at.
If this really helps development in text languages, NI would be able to speed up LabVIEW development, maybe even implementing AI in LabVIEW!
"Hey ChatGPC, add yourself to the LabVIEW source" 😂
wiebe@CARYA wrote:
@daphilli wrote:Prior to LabVIEW 8.6, I favored C++. But, after NI added OOP, VI Server and recursion, LabVIEW became viable for my purposes. E
I'm pretty sure VI Server and recursion have been in LabVIEW since LV4.
That was not really VI Server as we know it. LabVIEW 4 added some CIN based VI libraries that allowed you to open VIs programmatically and even pass values to the controls and retrieve them by the control label. It was indeed creating the name VI server as a thing, but the actual VI Server technology as we know it nowadays was introduced in LabVIEW 5.
@rolfk wrote:
wiebe@CARYA wrote:
@daphilli wrote:Prior to LabVIEW 8.6, I favored C++. But, after NI added OOP, VI Server and recursion, LabVIEW became viable for my purposes. E
I'm pretty sure VI Server and recursion have been in LabVIEW since LV4.
That was not really VI Server as we know it. LabVIEW 4 added some CIN based VI libraries that allowed you to open VIs programmatically and even pass values to the controls and retrieve them by the control label. It was indeed creating the name VI server as a thing, but the actual VI Server technology as we know it nowadays was introduced in LabVIEW 5.
Fair enough. My memory of these things is a bit fuzzy. Still, long before 8.5.
@abenevides wrote:The issue with ChatGPT which I'm concerned about is that it may lean into bad coding practices for inexperienced programmers. Yes, it will write the code for you, but you still have to communicate your logic to the interpreter. If the machine can recommend better ideas, that's neat, but I have to wonder how the machine "knows" which implementation is best. Sounds like a recipe to bake in errors across the board, and then we have a fleet of developers who have no idea how to analyze code.
Decades ago, (besides fuzzy logic, ) genetic algorithms where all the rage.
These might be a lot easier to apply to LabVIEW, although GPT (I'm told) should work on any training set that can be arranged in a tree.
The idea is that there's a population (gene pool) with phenotypes (the DNA). A fitness function selects the best specimen from the population, and these 'procreate'. The fitness function can be user input though, or partially human input.
I've seen for instance image generators, where the user can select from a set a few images they like. The next generation of images will be combinations and mutations of the selected images. Repeat until it's good enough. The phenotype is a list of functions, shapes, filters, functions, etc. It always made me think VIs could (potentially) be constructed in a similar way.
This would be able to run on even the most modest PC, and wouldn't require a cloud service, and selling your soul to some big corporation.
Of course fuzzy logic, genetic algorithms and neural networks can be combined.
@carq wrote:
I have only been coding in LabVIEW for the last year and a half, and while I absolutely hated it starting out, I have found that there are a lot of really nice things that can be done.
👍
@carq wrote:I do some relatively complex coding, and particularly for bouncing back and forth and trying to pull different items for different customers, a text based language would be much faster. Which makes the formula node a major go to.
That's a bit puzzling, and raises many questions. But then, I had 25 years to get answers to those questions. 😉
@carq wrote:I am planning to do some combination to accomplish tasks in the most efficient way possible.
Sure.
It's not a bad idea (at all), but the success will depend a lot on the execution.
