Leaderboard

I do it all for the rep-points, yeah, the rep-points, yeah, the rep-points...

I think it was dead anyway Indeed. I believe LV OOP was invented to give C++ programmers a warm fuzzy feeling and entice them to use Labview. The advantage for beginners that Labview brings is that they are able think in a sequential manner to start with and lay down code in the same order as their thought process when analysing problems. This means that they learn the environment a capabilities of LV quickly whilst still producing tangible results (i.e code that works) without being encumbered by how it works. Once they get used to using LV as a symbolic "scratchpad", they quickly move on to more complex subjects as a natural progression. They also don't have to worry about pointers, memory management and all the other obnoxious stuff that makes other languages so flexible so their time is spent on the problem rather than managing code. However, if you sit them down and explain that you have to spend 3 weeks writing code with (from their point of view) no discernible benefit apart from being able to make other code work. They quickly get confused, frustrated and bored. If they can sit down and in 10 minutes turn a light on and off, or make the computer beep every time they walk past it.....then you have an audience This is true. But when it doesn't give you what you were expecting, then you do! Just because a program contains objects (C++ .net or anything) doesn't mean it is an object orientated program. Non OOP programmers view these objects as "functions" to extract whatever data they need. They (I? ) mainly view them as a container with specialised features not dissimilar to a vi with a case statement that enables selection of a series of sub vis. This view is far less abstract and easier to digest for virgin programmers.

No that it will be much help directly, but here is a post from the other forum. From NI poster: We've continued testing on hubs and extenders, but have yet to find any that work to our satisfaction (%100 of the time for every chipset). We have found that name brand powered USB hubs usually work and that active extension cables usually work. We've also found that most USB to ethernet and "wireless" USB extenders either don't work at all with our products, or have unacceptable throughput and reliability issues.

[speaking purely as a developer myself, not speaking in any way for NI for this post.] Oh, yeah, I've made this mistake before. Not with LV... another tool. In my case it was choosing to use Oracle (licensed to my employer) instead of MySQL (freeware tool). I left that employer and my tools were dead -- I had copies of all my databases, but no way to use them. In a case where I made the right decision, my copy of CorelDraw is mine, paid for out of my pocket, even though Iuse it frequently at work. NI probably would've bought Corel for me once I showed a need for it in my work, but all of my personal graphics projects are in Corel and I don't want to lose access to them if I everleave NI. Essentially, bsvingen faces a rather classic problem. He used a license registered to entity A to produce software for entity B, and now without access to person A's license, he's stuck without the ability to continue working on the project for entity B. The solution is not, IMHO, to say, "Never use the licensed tool, always use the free tool." The actual answer is, "Never start a project using tools that have licenses that differ from the owner of the project." In other words, if the project is for entity B, don't use entity A's licenses to develop it. So if this is my personal project, I need a personal license, rather than relying upon my office license, otherwise I end up one day not having access to that license. Is a personal copy of LV cheap? Heck no. But neither is a personal copy of a lot of cool software. I'd like to say, "use LV for everything it is appropriate for." But I'd also like to get a paycheck every couple weeks, which means LV costs money, which means "use LV if you can afford to use it in all the times where it is appropriate". It'd be nice if it were down around $250, like Visual Studio, but we don't have anywhere near the volume that MS does to be able to make back our expenses at that low a price. I don't think the licensing takes away from the *language* being a general purpose programming language -- by which I mean, if you have access to LV, you can use LV for any programming project, effectively and efficiently, to the same degree as any other programming language. Every language has its strengths and weaknesses, and LV's particular set of trade-offs are no worse than a lot of other languages. But I do agree with bsvingen that the licensing takes away from the development tool being a general purpose development tool -- by which I mean not all developers will have access to it. That's really what's at the heart of the open source/free software arguments, but while I definitely use open source stuff, and I've contributed back to a few open source projects, and I wrote a lot of shareware back in history, I don't think anyone has figured out how to pay a staff of programmers while charging nothing for the software.