Getting LabVIEW Scripting out of the shadows

[crelf]

There was some tweeting today about how NI could transition LabVIEW scripting into the community, and one suggestion was to release it to NI Labs. Discuss.

[MikaelH]

QUOTE (crelf @ Jan 21 2009, 11:34 AM)

There was some tweeting today about how NI could transition LabVIEW scripting into the community, and one suggestion was to release it to http://www.ni.com/labs/' target="_blank">NI Labs. Discuss.

NI Labs, that would be great. I believe it's stabile enough, I’ve used it for years without any major problems.

Cheers,

Mikael

[Jim Kring]

Here is my position on the topic:

Scripting is out there and many people are using it to create some amazing tools for assisting LabVIEW development and automating various tasks. I'd like for NI to give us its blessing to create such tools, so that we don't feel like renegade outlaws and can feel comfortable sharing them with others. And, I'd love for NI staff to be able to contribute to the technical discussions around scripting -- the current position from NI seems to be that it doesn't exist. Bottom line, machine readable and writable source code is a prerequisite for creating software engineering tools. And, it would be great for NI to empower the LabVIEW community to create better software engineering tools for LabVIEW. Bottom line: I think that it would be of great value to let the LabVIEW ecosystem create innovative features and tools on the LabVIEW platform. It's a win-win situation.

[Michael Aivaliotis]

Here is some of the Twitter thread:

QUOTE

crelf Once again, LabVIEW scripting saves the day! I don't know how I'd program without it

jimkring @crelf We must legitimize scripting by creating great tools for solving important problems, thereby making LabVIEW a better platform.

NJKirchner @jimkring @crelf Sounds like synergy to me!!!

crelf @jimkring indeed.

crelf @NJKirchner Not that there's anything wrong with that!

MikeAivaliotis @crelf NI should just unlock scripting and give it to the community. NI Should embrace the community instead of fearing it.

crelf @MikeAivaliotis the documentation is much better in the latest versions, so maybe that's where NI's going?

NJKirchner @MikeAivaliotis Every AE on the 2nd floor just collectively cried out in pain and I heard it up on 8

jimkring @NJKirchner Why not release scripting in the NI Labs? Then NI wouldn't have to support it and AE's could sleep at night. Everybody wins.

crelf @jimkring @NJKirchner @MikeAivaliotis Awwww crap - what have I started?

NJKirchner @jimkring because the two don't synergize

crelf @NJKirchner Dodging the Question? You've been at NI for too long

jimkring @NJKirchner Sounds like you've got a new slogan and t-shirt: http://bit.ly/RoRm

njhollenback Show NI the money or a real strong value proposition

cloew @jimkring How is that differenty than what we have today? It seems people skilled enough to use LV scripting are already doing so

crelf @cloew @njhollenback @jimkring @NJKirchner@MikeAivaliotis All great comments - let's move the discussion over to LAVA.

jimkring @cloew I don't want to feel like an outlaw when I use LabVIEW scripting.

MikeAivaliotis @cloew It's easy for those on the inside. The old in keys don't work anymore. Open it up to all and we'll stop complaining.

jimkring "Legalize Scripting" would make for a great underground t-shirt for NIWeek 2009: http://bit.ly/YOEJ

I mentioned Releasing VI Scripting in NI Labs to NI right when NI Labs was first announced. Nothing has become of it however which is sad.

Question to you MikaelH: How do you get scripting enabled in 8.6?

[Francois Normandin]

I'd vote for NI Labs. Since I'm a lab rat that rarely supports code for people other than myself, I would appreciate this feature to be released in some official format but that's not too much of a problem as it is right now.

I strongly sympathize with those out there who'd like to include these features in released products... I guess I would benefit from those enhancements sooner or later.

[Tomi Maila]

I would strongly vote for getting LV scripting public and "legal". Publishing it via NI Labs could be a very good solution, also this way NI would get some feedback on stability of scripting. I guess NI would benefit itself on its own internal software development if scripting gets publicly tested via VI Labs.

Tomi

[Val Brown]

QUOTE (Tomi Maila @ Jan 20 2009, 11:27 PM)

I would strongly vote for getting LV scripting public and "legal". Publishing it via NI Labs could be a very good solution, also this way NI would get some feedback on stability of scripting. I guess NI would benefit itself on its own internal software development if scripting gets publicly tested via VI Labs.

Tomi

One wonders what the reasons are for NOT doing this. It really does seem to be a "no-brainer". Perhaps if NI has a good reason to not do this and would actually disclose that reason (or reasons), it would be easier to accept that it would/should (maybe!) remain an "in-house treat", not for general consumption. I would certainly like to see it and have stayed away from using it -- even though it IS available -- simply because I ONLY want to deal with "official" releases.

NI Labs is definitely a great way to go.

[LAVA 1.0 Content]

What I heard about scripting is that especially event-structure is very hard to do.

The events are nowhere proper enumerated, so that maybe quite hard.

Ton

[crelf]

QUOTE (Ton @ Jan 21 2009, 04:27 AM)

What I heard about scripting is that especially event-structure is very hard to do.

I think what you're trying to get as is we should question: Is LabVIEW Scripting is mature enough for public consumption? Discuss.

[TobyD]

Another thing to think about...Right now scripting is free. Rest assured that if it is ever legitamized, NI's nickle-and-dime pricing scheme will find a way to tack on an extra $1000 or so to allow us all to use it.

[LAVA 1.0 Content]

QUOTE (crelf @ Jan 21 2009, 09:26 AM)

I think what you're trying to get as is we should question: Is LabVIEW Scripting is mature enough for public consumption? Discuss.

Here's a couple of my personal thoughts on this topic. This is not an official statement from NI, I don't work in R&D or on the LV team, and I don't know what the reasons are for not releasing this feature.

• Once a feature is released as part of a product, NI attempts to ensure long term support and forward compatibility for that feature so that upgrading applications from one version to the next is as seemless as possible. This means it becomes very difficult to make significant changes in any existing features, especially ones that include an API of any sort. Therefore NI may not release an API for public consumption in order to reserve the ability to make changes to said API without breaking a lot of existing external source code. My personal guess is that the R&D team does not feel comportable with the current state of the scripting API and long term forward compatible support.
  
• Product support is always a big issue and decision influencer in the release of any product or feature. Scripting is a very advanced feature and can be very difficult to support using the existing support channels. This fact may also hold back the release of this feature, weighing the cost versus the benefits.
  
• Regarding NI Labs: NI Labs is not an official release of a product and NI does not offer support or guarantee future existence and compatibility of anything made available through NI Labs. Therefore it is not advisable to build any add-on product, toolkits, development tools, etc. based on NI Labs content, as it may not be supported at all in a future version of the product. However, making something available on NI Labs can and does create certain expectations among users and developers and it is important to manage such expectations properly in order to maintain long term viability and success of a product.
  

[mike_spacex]

Scripting wouldn't be as much fun if it were "legal", am I right? Even for those of you who don't (yet) inhale, isn't it great just to get a little taste of scripting knowing that "the man" doesn't want you to? If not, well, hang around these forums long enough and the peer pressure is sure to get the best of you. Perhaps it should just be legalized for medicinal purposes -- to help take the edge off those long boring days at work for the rogue programmer.

Analogies aside, NI Labs is a place that "showcases the evolving technologies from NI R&D engineers that aren't quite ready for release". First, let's assume "aren't quite ready for release" refers to the technologies, not the R&D engineers. Second, I don't think scripting fits the bill. Besides, NI is probably thinking, "Legalize scripting!? What are they gonna ask for next, opening LabVIEW source code?!" We really would need Obama for that one.

I guess what I'm saying is, I don't think it'll happen. BUT, if it does, wouldn't it be great if NI still required us to type in 'SuperSecretPrivateSpecialStuff', that way I can still feel like an evil genius!

[crelf]

QUOTE (mike_nrao @ Jan 21 2009, 11:23 AM)

...NI Labs is a place that "showcases the evolving technologies from NI R&D engineers that aren't quite ready for release". ...I don't think scripting fits the bill.

Why not? I'm not saying that I disagree with you, but I'd like to know your reasoning.

[bsvingen]

Maybe they feel that scripting doesn't add any real value unless you are developing LabVIEW? I mean, you don't need scripting to make a good logging program. Scripting is compleletly incompatible with the KISS principle but there are lots of questionable? uses for it when making toolkits and stuff like that.

[Michael Aivaliotis]

So far I still haven't heard any valid arguments against releasing it in NI Labs. As the young people say: "All of them are made of FAIL and are pretty lame". Nice try though.

It's a fact that since the "secret" of scripting came out here on the forums, NI has been hiding more and more of the exposed features available with the hidden ini key with every new release of LabVIEW. There is still a lot of stuff under the hood that is not available by entering the hidden ini key. Also, what about xnodes? yet another piece of the puzzle that should be released at the same time as scripting. Hey, all the docs for Xnodes are on our Wiki.

Just hand over the docs for VI scripting to LAVA and tell us how to unlock it all and we'll take care of the rest. Seriously, no one will know.... :ninja:

[Grampa_of_Oliva_n_Eden]

QUOTE (Michael_Aivaliotis @ Jan 21 2009, 04:53 PM)

So far I still haven't heard any valid arguments against releasing it in NI Labs. As the young people say: "All of them are made of FAIL and are pretty lame". Nice try though.

...

The patent for LV has is is due to run out (unless something happened since I last looked).

MS purchased a company (don't remeber the name) that had intelectual property that rivaled LV.

Someday, NI is going to have to gird up their loins and put LV up against C++ etc if LV will eventually "take over the world" (Yair's signature).

Scripting has been the "big hammer" used by NI to develop a lot of the enhancements we have seen recently to LV.

so...

Keeping Scripting limited NI can maintain its control over enhancements to LV and force anyone attempting to make a better version of LV (LV writtien in LV?) they will have to work for it.

Re: The secret slipping out about scripting in the first place.... "Lets let Mickey try it. He hates everything."* Look at some of the early public relese of Scripting utilities. EG The tunnel wiring tool. Look at NI's release of the new linked tunnels in LV 8.6.

Ben

* If I spelled out everything in plain English, I would not be neBulus.

[Tomi Maila]

This topic is related to the following question, so I raise it up here. About a year ago I released a Active VI Toolkit prerelease version on ExpressionFlow. The toolkit was closed source as it was based on scripting, XNodes and instance VIs, all three NI "secret" technologies. I didn't want to get trouble with NI by releasing the rather advanced usage of scripting and XNodes to the public. However, I think that as an open source toolkit the Active VI Toolkit would be much more interesting. Does anyone know if releasing the source code under something like LGPL to the public would break NI license agreements?

[Antoine Chalons]

QUOTE (neBulus @ Jan 22 2009, 03:35 PM)

Keeping Scripting limited NI can maintain its control over enhancements to LV and force anyone attempting to make a better version of LV (LV writtien in LV?) they will have to work for it.

I agree with Ben !

And I would relate this to a the comments on http://pasquarette.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/customer-affinity-how-are-we-doing/' rel='nofollow' target="_blank">this blog post from John Pasquarette.

"for partners looking to build products, or connect their products to LabVIEW - I think we are pretty weak. We can do a better job working with these kinds of partners to get better access to our user base, market their products, provide frameworks for assuring that their products have a defined level of quality, reliability, and usability that matches up with LabVIEW users' expectations, etc."

I'm wandering if VIPM would be work without scripting, would it :question:

[mike_spacex]

I said earlier that I don't think scripting "fits the bill" for NI Labs for the same reason LV_FPGA_SE stated:

QUOTE (LV_FPGA_SE @ Jan 21 2009, 10:55 AM)

making something available on NI Labs can and does create certain expectations

If a LabVIEW version upgrade suddenly breaks all my xNodes or scripting code, my supervisor (who knows very little about LabVIEW) would flip out when he discovers I was using an unsupported technology. I only want stuff on Labs that truely is nearly ready for release so I can confidently use it knowing there's little risk that, down the road, major refactoring of my code will be necessary. If NI is prepared (or nearly prepared) and equipped to support most functionality made available through scripting, including auto-update of deprecated properties and methods, then I think Labs is in fact a good place for it. If not, wise advice would be - keep it in your pants if you're not ready for that sort of commitment. Perhaps I'm being too pessimistic about the maturity of scripting and NI's readiness to support it.

[crelf]

QUOTE (mike_nrao @ Jan 22 2009, 10:58 AM)

If a LabVIEW version upgrade suddenly breaks all my xNodes or scripting code, my supervisor (who knows very little about LabVIEW) would flip out when he discovers I was using an unsupported technology. I only want stuff on Labs that truely is nearly ready for release so I can confidently use it knowing there's little risk that, down the road, major refactoring of my code will be necessary.

I would totally agree with your supervisor, but on a different level: IMHO the technology is released or it isn't. Sure, stuff that hasn't made it to NI-Labs yet might be less mature that the code on NI-Labs, but they're both in the same category as far as I'm concerned: unreleased. I would argue that your boss would see that the technologies are either in the released LabVIEW distribution or not, and would not see the distinction between unrelease NI-Labs prototypes and other unreleased prototypes.

[Yair]

QUOTE (neBulus @ Jan 22 2009, 04:35 PM)

if LV will eventually "take over the world" (Yair's signature).

Actually, this has nothing to do with LabVIEW. It's simply part of the Brain's tagline.

QUOTE (mike_nrao @ Jan 22 2009, 05:58 PM)

I only want stuff on Labs that truely is nearly ready for release so I can confidently use it knowing there's little risk that, down the road, major refactoring of my code will be necessary.

You won't get it. As Chris and Chris mentioned, stuff on NI labs is experimental and may never be released. It seems to have partial support, but no guarantee for long term support.

Incidentally, I think you're not the only one who has this impression. I remember an NI support person saying once that they want people to use the stuff in the labs in their actual products.

Michael, I think that some users who run across "official" NI stuff do expect some support. It might be easier for NI to simply post the relevant license files to somewhere which isn't as public. Even so, I'm sure this will generate support calls which NI would have to handle before finding out that the problem is with scripting. It's much easier to just lock it so that the chances of people running up against it in the wild are lower.

[LAVA 1.0 Content]

There was once a discussion on the NI forums about scripting and what kind of impact it would have on the forums.

QUOTE

hlp! I wrote a vi tht mate a vi thta burnd my projct. plzz hlp fr friday

Besides we should make a distinction between scripting and private items.

In my opinion scripting is the possibility to edit LabVIEW source files (VIs) without human interaction.

Partially this is allready released, the methods exist to build lvlibraries/classes/xcontrols from scratch. The power to make VIs however is not in our hands.

Private items are properties/methods/events that are not fully debugged by NI and most likely will be released in a future version of LabVIEW.

Ton

[mike_spacex]

QUOTE (crelf @ Jan 22 2009, 12:59 PM)

... stuff that hasn't made it to NI-Labs yet might be less mature that the code on NI-Labs, but they're both in the same category as far as I'm concerned: unreleased.

I think we interpret NI Labs differently. When I read "aren't quite ready for release" and I see a list of "graduates" along the side of the page, I'm led to believe NI Labs stuff will soon (maybe less than one year) be available. Judging from the discussions on the NI Labs forums, there doesn't appear to be much product evolution taking place. This could mean people aren't using NI Labs, or people are not giving feedback, or the product is fairly mature and people are happy.

The question you pose, "Is LabVIEW Scripting mature enough for public consumption?", is for NI to answer. Most of the features I've used have been stable since I started using them in LabVIEW 7.1. I'm thinking that NI hasn't publicly made scripting available either because they are still planning on some major revamping, or (as suggested in some previous posts in this thread) they are keeping some sort of upper-hand over possible competition by keeping it in-house. Or maybe they're just pleasantly amused watching us 'easter egg hunt' with each new release!

[Phillip Brooks]

QUOTE (Ton @ Jan 22 2009, 01:57 PM)

Private items are properties/methods/events that are not fully debugged by NI and most likely will be released in a future version of LabVIEW.

And http://forums.ni.com/ni/board/message?board.id=170&message.id=381343#M381343' target="_blank">this post on the dark-side is one good reason to limit the amount of items exposed.

I have a hard enough time keeping track of the public methods and properties. Don't even get me started on calling .NET properties and methods; I get depressed when I have to poke around in THAT huge pile of, um, 'stuff'.

[bsvingen]

QUOTE (Michael_Aivaliotis @ Jan 21 2009, 10:53 PM)

So far I still haven't heard any valid arguments against releasing it in NI Labs. As the young people say: "All of them are made of FAIL and are pretty lame". Nice try though.

Maybe so, but there aren't many valid arguments for releasing scripting here either. From a pragmatic point of view, it is pretty obvious that NI lacks arguments for releasing it, but they have tons of arguments against it. What exactly those arguments are and if they are valid, makes no difference relating to the simple fact that they lack valid arguments for it.