how to pass parameters in a stacked sequence

[paul_a_cardinale]

---

@Sebastian.Weber wrote:

An alternative might be this:

It has the same "uglieness" as a stacked sequence, and comes with two more ugly points: To insert a frame in the middle, you have to shift all numbers after that frame, and you must not forget to wire the correct number of frames to N.  However, the shift register allows random access in each frame and follows the left-to-right flow. And this sequence can easily be aborted, if necessary.

---

I've seen that exact thing done by people because they "heard" that a stacked sequence is bad.

Along the same lines, one of my former cow-orkers put stuff like this all over his code (instead of local variables) because he "heard" that local variables cause race conditions.

[crossrulz]

---

@paul_a_cardinale wrote:

I've seen that exact thing done by people because they "heard" that a stacked sequence is bad.

Along the same lines, one of my former cow-orkers put stuff like this all over his code (instead of local variables) because he "heard" that local variables cause race conditions.

---

My pet peeve #1. I ended up making a presentation with the full intention of showing people why that is so bad. I got quite the looks when I showed the benchmarks and that they still had race conditions.

[altenbach]

---

@Muaddib0308 wrote:

How else do you stop your code growing exponentially in size?

---

as has been mentioned, that's a weird way of putting it and is blatantly incorrect.

• Code will grow linearly with each item you add.
• Since the diagram is a mostly 2D object, it can double the code area while the dimensions are much less than doubled.
• A stacked sequence is a 3D object, causing the code to "grow" linearly in the z dimension with each added frame, but since the monitor is still 2D, only one plane can be seen at any time, making it significantly more difficult to "follow the wire" without constantly flipping through frames.
• stacked sequences had some validity in the early days of 640x480 monitors. Nowadays it is safe to say that if a 4k monitor is not big enough, the problem is with the code.

Remember the old proverb:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If your LabVIEW problem can be solved by getting a bigger monitor, the problem is elsewhere.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[Basjong53]

---

@paul_a_cardinale wrote:

---

@Muaddib0308 wrote:

How else do you stop your code growing exponentially in size?

---

The code will only grow exponentially if the time spent coding it grows exponentially.

My guess is that you really meant "How else do you stop your code getting very big?", but you like the word "exponentially" better than "big", despite the fact that you don't know what "exponentially" means (it doesn't mean "big" or "fast" or "a lot").

The answer is: Sub VIs.

---

---

@altenbach wrote:

---

@Muaddib0308 wrote:

How else do you stop your code growing exponentially in size?

---

as has been mentioned, that's a weird way of putting it and is blatantly incorrect.

• Code will grow linearly with each item you add.
• Since the diagram is a mostly 2D object, it can double the code area while the dimensions are much less than doubled.
• A stacked sequence is a 3D object, causing the code to "grow" linearly in the z dimension with each added frame, but since the monitor is still 2D, only one plane can be seen at any time, making it significantly more difficult to "follow the wire" without constantly flipping through frames.
• stacked sequences had some validity in the early days of 640x480 monitors. Nowadays it is safe to say that if a 4k monitor is not big enough, the problem is with the code.

Remember the old proverb:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If your LabVIEW problem can be solved by getting a bigger monitor, the problem is elsewhere.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

---

You guys can't be serious... Obviously he was being hyperbolic and didn't mean 'exponentially' literally. He is new to LabVIEW, came to the forum to ask a genuine question, and you respond with these condescending messages?

Let's keep this forum a nice and helpful place, shall we? Especially for new users. If you think a question is too trivial for the forum, just don't reply. But this isn't helping anyone.

[jcarmody]

We have a reputation for pedantry to uphold. If we aren't alienating the next generation of developers over minor linguistic choices, are we even really "helping"?

[altenbach]

---

@Basjong53 wrote:
You guys can't be serious... Obviously he was being hyperbolic and didn't mean 'exponentially' literally. He is new to LabVIEW, ...

Please note that the "one-liner" comment in question added to an ancient thread where the issues were already fully discussed and answered 15 year ago! No other context was provided.

The user has been around for about two years and is not "new" to LabVIEW. (I doubt that a beginner will quickly run out of space). We need to assume that this users habits have lead to exponentially growing diagrams. This is not a problem that can be solved by a stacked sequence structure.

It is worth repeating that the use of stacked sequences has been highly discouraged by NI for years. This is the reason it was removed from the palettes many versions ago..

We would be happy to discuss valid solutions to keep diagram size reasonable (there are plenty!), but I would recommend to start a new thread (and show some code!) for that. It does not belong into a prehistoric discussion of stacked sequences because, as the proverb says, the problem is elsewhere.

Even the question started with "how else...:", right? So let's focus on that. :D.

[paul_a_cardinale]

---

@Basjong53 wrote:

---

@paul_a_cardinale wrote:

---

@Muaddib0308 wrote:

How else do you stop your code growing exponentially in size?

---

The code will only grow exponentially if the time spent coding it grows exponentially.

My guess is that you really meant "How else do you stop your code getting very big?", but you like the word "exponentially" better than "big", despite the fact that you don't know what "exponentially" means (it doesn't mean "big" or "fast" or "a lot").

The answer is: Sub VIs.

---

---

@altenbach wrote:

---

@Muaddib0308 wrote:

How else do you stop your code growing exponentially in size?

---

as has been mentioned, that's a weird way of putting it and is blatantly incorrect.

• Code will grow linearly with each item you add.
• Since the diagram is a mostly 2D object, it can double the code area while the dimensions are much less than doubled.
• A stacked sequence is a 3D object, causing the code to "grow" linearly in the z dimension with each added frame, but since the monitor is still 2D, only one plane can be seen at any time, making it significantly more difficult to "follow the wire" without constantly flipping through frames.
• stacked sequences had some validity in the early days of 640x480 monitors. Nowadays it is safe to say that if a 4k monitor is not big enough, the problem is with the code.

Remember the old proverb:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If your LabVIEW problem can be solved by getting a bigger monitor, the problem is elsewhere.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

---

You guys can't be serious... Obviously he was being hyperbolic and didn't mean 'exponentially' literally. He is new to LabVIEW, came to the forum to ask a genuine question, and you respond with these condescending messages?

Let's keep this forum a nice and helpful place, shall we? Especially for new users. If you think a question is too trivial for the forum, just don't reply. But this isn't helping anyone.

---

I'm a crotchety old man; and when people use big words, whose meaning they don't understand, I have a tendency to zing them (I'm ashamed of that, but not ashamed enough to stop doing it 🤪).

If you put $1000 into an account that pays 0.01% interest, after a year, your account will have grown to $1000.10. It didn't grow fast, and it didn't grow by much, but it did grow exponentially!

[jcarmody]

I used to tend toward pedantry, then I realized that English is not everybody's first language.  Also, I have a friend that corrects me when I speak Spanish and I want to shake him and scream "You knew what I meant!"

[paul_a_cardinale]

---

@jcarmody wrote:

I used to tend toward pedantry, then I realized that English is not everybody's first language.  Also, I have a friend that corrects me when I speak Spanish and I want to shake him and scream "You knew what I meant!"

---

So as long as a induhvidals speechings is deciphermentable by thoseselves who do listenments at it, all complainings is incorrectful?

(ya know what I mean?)