I tested NXG for the first time at a feedback session during the CLA summit. So I was learning NXG on the spot in front of one of the NXG developers. When I would get stuck trying to figure it something out, the developer would ask how would you do that in legacy LabVIEW and I would tell him, then he would show me how to do it in NXG. My understanding was that the NXG IDE was designed to make the number of programming number steps more "efficient". Unfortunately this sometimes sacrifices the many years of muscle memory doing things in legacy LabVIEW. A bad analogy would be brushing your teeth with the opposite hand because studies have shown that ambidextrous tooth brushers clean teeth slightly better. It may be slightly better in theory but the pain of learning outweighs the benefits. Some of the things I remember being slightly different (annoyingly):
Adding a terminal on the block diagram seemed more tedious and defaulted to not showing the Control/Indicator on the front panel . WTF.
While I'm sure the NXG team has received guidance/direction/development/feedback from very experienced insiders at NI, I walked away feeling like there was no way the internal NI experienced LabVIEW users were developing only with NXG on a daily basis by default. Otherwise muscle memory things like quickdrop would work exactly like they did in legacy LabVIEW. I think what needs to happen is Darren needs to un-retire from fastest LabVIEW competition and compete next May at NI-Week using NXG.
That said the NXG developers and team leads were very receptive to my feedback and seemed genuinely open to making changes. Now whether that carries through to the end product or not we will see. I also saw some new IDE features (new right click options for instance) that made me think that makes sense and I can see that helping speed up development once I get used to it.
If and when I use NXG I would like to see a checkbox in the options that says "maintain legacy front panel, block diagram and keyboard shortcut behavior as much as possible"