LabVIEW vs Teststand

[crossrulz]

---

@BowenM wrote:

Like I said before I still find the TestStand IDE slow and clunky even after using it for awhile.

---

I have not had that experience since TestStand 4.0 came out (major overhaul of the IDE).  With a decent computer and a well organized LabVIEW library, I can fly through test sequences just as quickly as a LabVIEW State Machine.

[JÞB]

OK, I may be a bit miss-construed here.  "TestStand" is classically a "Toy Language" in that it is specifically engineered to Execute Tests.  It has little practical value as a general purpose Language (I suppose one COULD write a SCADA application with it or design a Soft Front Panel UI using IVI step types, property loaders, FTP, Database IO, etc...) Yet, NO SERIOUS Programmer would find those examples cost effective.

It does execute Test Models very well and in that limited application space it can be cost effective.

[BowenM]

---

@JÞB wrote:

OK, I may be a bit miss-construed here.  "TestStand" is classically a "Toy Language" in that it is specifically engineered to Execute Tests.

---

By that argument, R is a "Toy Language" in that it is specifically designed for statistical computation.  LabVIEW is one because it is specifically designed as a virtual engineering workbench. Mathematica, MATLAB, Maple are all toy languages because they are specifically designed for mathematical computations.  There are lots of real, valid languages that are designed for a single purpose.

To me, a real "toy" language would be something like cjam that has no logical real-world application aside from playing around.

Spoiler

If you want to see a real "toy" language, some time while NOT at work, look up "fetlang".

[JÞB]

NSFW another toy

[wiebe@CARYA]

This graphical programming language one is SFW:

Piet (inspired by Piet Mondriaan). Some examples are extraordinary.

No need for an IDE, paint will do.