Leaderboard

As Rick Santorum can attest, a #1 Google search can certainly affect your image. I would point out that there have been some lively discussions on NI's own forums. This one is a classic. http://forums.ni.com...ons/m-p/1908003 There are a few NI employee posts in there, but much of the discussion is between users. In the end there was still disagreement, but kudos to NI for not purging it as Apple and AT&T sometimes does because the discussion "besmirches the brand". The response to David's post in the Wordpress link you provided pretty much ends the conversation. Richard's response was: He states that he cannot think clearly, that passion takes the place of logic and that his personal situation somehow makes NI's products bad. We just have to accept that sometimes "haters gonna hate"

That was how I felt about Richard's retort. I read his list of unforgivable flaws and every single of one of them has a solution I would have easily handled six months after starting LV. I didn't read the rest of the page, but I get the impression he comes from a distinctly non-G background and simply has no desire to change his mind.

Just want to chime in here – I’m NI’s social business manager and a stakeholder in LabVIEW’s brand reputation on the social web. It’s my job to tune into online conversations that mention LabVIEW and help advise on why/how NI may need to take any direct action. The infamous LabVIEW hate blog post you guys found provides a fascinating case study for how one simple complaint on an obscure blog about nothing can turn into a brand reputation crisis. You’ve noticed that Todd Sierer chimed in on the blog several years ago. Little did we know the blog comments would continue to snowball into something that now has 131 comments and counting. Today, this blog post appears in top organic search results for “LabVIEW+alternatives” and “LabVIEW+hate." More recently, I recruited our VP from LabVIEW R&D to chime in. His post is worth the read – I personally know he spent quite some time putting it together. His words provide the most current glimpse into the state of LabVIEW and where David personally would like to see it headed. Take a look. http://jshoer.wordpress.com/2007/08/03/why-i-hate-despise-detest-and-loathe-labview/#comment-3610 The negative comments on the blog are extremely deflating to any LabVIEW brand advocate like myself. I’d agree that most of them are rabid, yet insubstantial complaints because of frustrations stemming from the fact that they simply don’t understand how to effectively use LabVIEW (and I’m not insinuating that it’s completely their faults…NI needs to do a lot more to set the right expectations with new users and help build proficiency). But I’m also a realist and like it or not, we’ve entered the age of the social web, where anyone can say anything and get heard. For NI, it’s a huge opportunity and huge liability all at the same time. What gives me hope: This LAVA thread is listed as the #1 organic search result in Google for “LabVIEW hate” and I’d much rather someone find this thread than the blog post. You guys have taken time to provide thoughtful, constructive feedback about LabVIEW that would actually be helpful for someone considering the tool. Not all of it’s good and that’s ok. That’s what people need to hear. And that’s what NI need’s to hear too. Rest assured: it’s your feedback that we’ll actually take action on. But I just wanted to thank you all for caring enough about LabVIEW to examine and explain how we can continue to make it better, in a meaningful way. This LAVA thread helps me sleep better at night. So thanks for the extra winks of sleep.

According to the text in the code....yes

You can change the feedback node direction and wire the output of the node instead of the output of "+1". That would be the equivalent to the case structure.

I think that VIPM and LabVIEW Tools Network is the solution that NI provide in order to "upgrade LabVIEW experience". It gives access to tools (free or not) with a minimum of "quality" checking. It's certainly have to be improved but I think that it's done continuously since it was released in LV2010.

มีดื่มสำหรับผม. ชนแก้ว ฝรั่งติงต๊อง

There are a lot of considerations when deciding which VIs to make reentrant. Its about finding a balance between maximum performance and minimum memory usage. Any VI that maintains state needs to be either non-reentrant or fully reentrant depending on its requirements for that state. If there are any VIs that truly can't be called at the same time, those should stay non-reentrant. This could be things like configuration dialogs or file modification. Non-reentrant VIs are one of the easiest ways to serialize access to single instance resources. Any VI that is part of a performance critical code path probably should be made fully reentrant. This avoids synchronization points between multiple parallel instances of performance critical code or non-performance critical code getting in the way of performance critical code. Beyond that you can start to favor non-reentrant or shared reentrant to reduce memory usage. As crossrulz said, VIs that always execute quickly can be considered for leaving as non-reentrant. Keep in mind that there is a difference between a VI that always executes quickly and one that typically executes quickly. Anything that does asynchronous communication (networking, queues, ...) should be considered slow, because it could take longer than expected. Making VIs that are called from a lot of places shared reentrant instead of fully reentrant will slightly increase execution time but can greatly reduce the number of instances required and thus memory usage.

I just thought of what could be the perfect April 1 presser. It combines LabVIEW, augmented reality glasses and VI Analyzer. Any programmer wearing the glasses would see real-time suggestions for improving the code while it is executing with highlighting turned on. Users could write their own analyzer tests to implement features like 'bleach dead code' but the only way to see the results is using the glasses. An optional Source Control add-on would allow for displaying check-in comments and allow the user to highlight code changed by a specific user (identify code that is suspect) Not only would the well equipped LV programmer look friggen' awesome, but it would help NI sell more hardware. Isn't that what LabVIEW is for anyway?

Meh, I hate LabVIEW as well. C/C++/C# too. Also hate PHP, VB, Perl and most every other language I've used. Hate databases too! While we're at it CSV files suck as well. Point is while I have reasons for disliking all of the above, I also have as many reasons to like each of them as well. Each has their place. LabVIEW, like any other language, has its strengths and weaknesses. I find myself paying little attention to the text-based zealots who refuse to acknowledge there might be another way of going about doing things, and similarly I don't pay attention to the all-out LabVIEW supporters who refused to acknowledge its limitations and weaknesses.