Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 12/07/2020 in all areas

  1. I did not know. That possibility was not even on my radar. Even though the drumbeat of bad news had been going for a while, most corporations refuse to change direction on a bad decision. NI showed more sentience than I usually expect from massed humans: the sunk cost fallacy is a trap that is very hard to get out of. I figured the very good engineers on NXG would either surge through it and make it fly or we would bankrupt the company trying. That's the pattern established by plenty of other companies. Mixed. I spent 4.5 years directly working on NXG (2011 to 2016) and countless hours in later years working with the NXG team to design a future G. I really wanted it to fly. There is so much good in that IDE, including some amazing things that I just don't see how we ever do in the LabVIEW codebase without just shattering compatibility. But at the same time, I was watching good friends toil on something that the market just wasn't adopting. The software had some problems that were going to take a long time to solve. The issues were all solvable, but the time needed to fix them... that was harder and harder to justify. NXG gave us a GREAT platform for other software: Veristand, FlexLogger, etc. That code is extremely modular and can be repurposed for all sorts of tools. We also learned a heck of a lot by building NXG -- some things that I thought we could never do in LabVIEW now seem possible. NXG gave us a sandbox to learn a whole lot about modern software engineering without putting the delivery schedule for mature software at risk, and those practices [have been|are being] brought back and applied to LabVIEW -- that will decrease cost of maintaining older code. All in all, NXG was valuable -- the expenditure was not a complete loss. I am very sorry to the few customers who did migrate to NXG. We don't have a reverse migration tool, and building one would be absurdly expensive. Leaving those folks stranded is going to hurt -- I hate letting our customers down and just saying, "We have no solution to help you." There aren't many of those folks (that's essentially the problem), but they do exist, and they are basically stuck having to rewrite their NXG apps in some other tool. I can only hope that they pick LabVIEW. I don't know if this will help us or hurt us with customers in the future... on one hand, people may say, "Well, you let us down on NXG, why should we trust you will be there for us on any new products?" On the other hand, this decision was clearly made listening to customer feedback, and it takes a lot of humility to swallow a loss that big, which may make customers trust our judgement more in the future. And, really, there's nothing to compare with the scale of NXG -- an entire computing platform -- so this does seem like something that needs to be judged in isolation. I really like programming in G. I like being able to expand G to make it more powerful. I wanted NXG to succeed because it had the potential to be a better G. It failed. Its failure means more resources for the existing LabVIEW platform, which will directly help our customers in the short run. It leaves open some big questions for the long run. So, in summary: I think it was a decision that had to be made, and I'm happy to work for a company that can learn from new data, then admit a mistake, and then figure out how to correct it.
    1 point
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.