Leaderboard

No need for polling. There are many ways to tackle this depending on how much control you have over the server application. I'd say the easiest way is to just register a callback on the browser object to notify you of a navigation complete event. Your job will be to check the URI of the navigation, and if it indicates a submission, then go ahead and query the server. For example (LV2011 SP1): submit example.zip When you run submit example.vi, it will show you the lavag.org website and continue to run until you execute a search on the forum. Rather than returning, your application would have to do more sophisticated handling such as error handling, then go ahead and query the server, but this proves the basic premise. I'd likely stick most of this logic in the callback VI instead of the event frame, but for the example I wanted most of the code in the same place.

A little rule I always apply in situations like this is to remember that "people always criticise things they don't fully underatand" I've spent 14 years programming in labVIEW , it was my first language , it is my go-to language (ecuse the pun) and it makes me more productive. I'm happy EDIT: Just read Dave's response, it makes me optimisic to know that guys like Dave and AQ are driving the direction of this product. Great reponse.

Like you, I occasionally try to look at various other graphical languages to see what's out there. I don't remember if I just read about VPL or whether I actually tried it when it was new, but in any case it was long enough ago that I wouldn't have any useful feedback now, other than making two off topic but useful comments: 1. You should definitely use the LV toolkit for NXT. It has its bugs (or at least did the last time I used it. It probably improved since then), but I found it a lot easier to use than the Mindstorms IDE. 2. Just right click the subVI and select Help. If the VI has a help page, it will be opened directly.

iEmilie: I haven't really been worried about the "hate LV" blog post. I kind of enjoy reading it. In my eyes, LabVIEW seems to come out pretty well in that thread. I figure there's always going to be someone angry at us, so the existence of the thread itself doesn't bother me. What I like is that in all of the pro-LV comments, whether from NI or not, people reply with calmness, reasonableness and helpful advice. I've read that thread a few times over the years and thought perhaps we should start an advertising campaign: "LabVIEW: Using it will make you a nicer person." :-) Various folks have said that reading that post was deflating. It shouldn't be. My list of "things I hate about LabVIEW" would be waaaaay more than just 10 things, and I guarantee some of them are far blacker marks against us than anything jshoer mentions. I cannot believe how incredibly stupid we have been over the years on some features (yes, I include features I created and now regret), and how long it is taking us to get certain upgrades. But I don't view these deficiencies as reasons to be depressed. LabVIEW is a growing language, adapting over 25 years to the changing technologies and customer bases. Doing what no one has ever done before sometimes means you get a less than optimal solution and you have to fix it up in round 2. Do we have more we can do? Yes. And we continue to work to improve. But the backbone of LabVIEW remains strong. Graphics is the only manageable way to express parallelism, and parallelism is the name of the game in the future. Have you guys seen the parallel keywords that Microsoft has been introducing into the other languages lately? Everything needs to be parallel, but procedural programming is a dead end. There is only so far you can go with compiler analysis of procedural code and manual control of mutexes before you hit a wall and flat out say, "No, I need a system that is designed for multicore from the outset." Between our parallel expression on the desktop and our ability to target FPGAs, I'm thrilled about LV's future, and all the complaining is just the list of tasks we need to be tackling on our way there. When I started at NI, on my first day, I saw a sign by Jeff K's desk: "You know you have built a successful product when people use it for things you never intended and criticize you for being short sighted." The "hate LV" post is just one of the sign posts of our success.

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.

The scan from string does support UTC by specifying a ^ in the format string If I use %^<%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%S%3uZ>T if UTC or %<%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%S%3uZ>T if not UTC in your example I think it works as expected. /J