Leaderboard

I have access to all versions from 7 through to 2015 (32 and 64 bit as well as other platforms). Let there be no mistake. I am not calling into question LabVIEWs performance and stability - which has always been exemplary. My jocularity is that people still believe this is a valid excuse for shipping commercial software and proffering it as a feature. We have "software as a service" (SAAS) so I will coin the phrase "excuse as a feature" (EAAF) Also, to an extent, it's a case of "you have to laugh or else you would cry" to my disappointment that this myth is allowed to perpetuate when it was a single version (2011) that was supposed to be the "Stability and performance" release after the pain of 2010. I laughed then when they came out with it and I'm still laughing 5 years later (You can find it on LavaG.org) Try charging your customers for a "performance and reliability" version of your software and see how far you get

Not too long ago someone turned me on to the indeed trends page. I don't know how useful the data is but if anyone hasn't seen it its kind of neat: http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends/q-labview.html Which looks negative, but then you compare that to other languages and.. http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends/q-labview-q-python-q-java-q-C%23-q-C++.html?relative=1 In relative terms, python is a huge winner. If you add in standard labview terms you get these interesting compares: http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends/q-labview-test-measurement-q-python-test-measurement.html http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends/q-labview-instrument-q-python-instrument.html

If you answer why you haven't visited in 2 years then that will probably be the answer you seek. Not sure what you mean by "cool" discussions. If you mean things like LVOOP then, personally, I don't think it has anything to do with LavaG being past it. LabVIEW stagnated over 5 years ago and all the subjects have been talked to death and everyone has written and debugged their frameworks (as they were in other languages 10 years before that). There were really only a handful of contributors (AQ, Daklu, Shoneill .... and now I'm struggling) and the only one that still visits to contribute is Shoneill, I think. Generally, though the lack of LabVIEW innovation is the main reason there are less "cool" discussions generally. The thing that made this apparent to me was when a 15 year old technology (Vi Macros) was suddenly re-discovered and piqued everyones interest. There was then a flurry of contribution and excitement (especially me) that brought me out of answering implementation questions and sparked my need to investigate and explore - something that probably hadn't happened for a couple of years on LavaG. So new "cool stuff" isn't being discussed because LabVIEW isn't developing new "cool stuff". VI macros ended with the development of "Named Events" and that is "Cool" with a capital "ICE" If Lavag.org goes then I will not be going over to ni.com. I never post on ni.com and probably only visit it 2-3 times a year if Google gives me a result in the top 5.I got tired of it demanding to know the inside circumference of my colon just to log in and the quality of answers is nowhere near as adroit or concise as on here. You know how after 10 years of programming when you have a problem that would be a 10 minute fix if only you knew x, y or z? So you phone up NI and manage to get through to an application engineer then spend the next 4 hours explaining your problem and them passing it on to someone that actually knows, waiting for their response then replying back. Three days later of this back and forth and they finally escalate your query and you get to talk with the actual person that knows and they tell you "Oh thats what you wanted? x=2, y=4 and z=8". Thats ni.com! In this analogy, LavaG is where ni.com escalates the query to. So don't think of ni.com it as a competitor. Think of it as a filter for studenty and mundane questions