[OT?] LabVIEW is a 5G programming Language?

[tst]

---

Nickerbocker wrote:
since it requires a runtime that contains standard libraries that are required to execute code that is "compiled" (I like the word "built" better actually).

---

You may prefer the word "built", but it wouldn't be correct in the case of LabVIEW. .NET and Java "build" the code into an intermediary form which is then run by a virtual machine of sorts (the JVM in Java, the CLR in .NET). LabVIEW compiles the graphical code directly to machine code which is saved as part of the VI. The RTE in LabVIEW holds common functionality (like the C run-time) and does some of the work required to run and coordinate the machine code saved inside the VI. I have no idea exactly what it does, but it does NOT need to translate and run the actual code.

In any case, I think that's just an implementation detail, for the purposes of this discussion. I've heard all kinds of things about how NI might change the way it works. As long as it runs fast enough, it doesn't really matter. Also, as I said earlier, I agree with you on the low importance of the name we give it.

[Mellobuck]

 Thanks for that reply TonP, that's the kind of information I was looking for - I hadn't put thought into the fact that LabVIEW development is more 'alive' than the others mentioned. I am learning more about the science theory of how things interact. Thanks also to the other points: I guess it seems that we are pretty well established in 4G, with some concern about whether we should be categorizing at all.

I do wonder whether some of the system-level tools, like FPGA, PDA and embedded are actually different, as they seem to 'hide' much more from the programmer, certainly do have some constraint on what can be done, and change your code one extra time (to c or HDL etx) before reaching the machine code/bitfile level. Well, I don't mean to hijack my own thread, I really appreciate the information!

[Cory_K]

---

Mellobuck wrote:

I do wonder whether some of the system-level tools, like FPGA, PDA and embedded are actually different, as they seem to 'hide' much more from the programmer, certainly do have some constraint on what can be done, and change your code one extra time (to c or HDL etx) before reaching the machine code/bitfile level. Well, I don't mean to hijack my own thread, I really appreciate the information!

---

Well that could be true of any code that isnt open source.

For example, in C++ libraries such as cmath.

You are not given cmath.cpp, you are given cmath.o.

Object code is not quite in full machine language yet, but you cannot modify the code either.

Therefore, there are restrictions to the inputs that you cannot modify, and you cannot see what is going on behind the scenes.