Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 06/17/2021 in all areas

  1. Does it help to re-ask the question as "where should LabVIEW have a future?" It is not difficult to name a number of capabilities (some already stated here) that are extremely useful to anyone collecting or analyzing data that are either unique, or much simpler, using LabVIEW. They're often taken for granted and we forget how significant they are and how much power they unlock. For example (and others can add more): FPGA - much easier than any text-based FPGA programming, and so powerful to have deterministic computational access to the raw data stream Machine vision - especially combined with a card like the 1473R, though it's falling behind without CoaXPress Units - yes no-one uses them , but they can extend strict programming to validation of correct algorithm implementation Parallel and multi-threaded programming - is there any language as simple for constructing parallel code? Not to mention natural array computations Real-time programming Data-flow - a coherent way of treating data as the main object of interest, fundamental, yet a near-unique programming paradigm with many advantages and all integrated into a single programming environment where all the compilation and optimization is handled under the hood (with almost enough ability to tweak that) Unfortunately NI appear to be backing away from many of these strengths, and other features have been vastly overtaken (image processing has hardly been developed in the last 10 years, GUI design got sidetracked into NXG unfortunately). But the combination of low-level control in a very high-level language seems far too powerful and useful to have no future at all.
    5 points
  2. Hi folks, Long time reader, 1st time poster (old account got deleted? couldn't recover it) LabVIEW and coffee? Heck yeah, any day. You'll see my spaghetti code come to life. 😄 No, but seriously ... I've always been a big fan of LabVIEW, and ever since NI discontinued their motion offerings, I was really sad for a while. (Maybe because motion was also my specialty as a systems engineer at NI. 🙁) Back in the day, NI had great motion products that worked well with LabVIEW. They worked great for pick-and-place systems, automatic positioning, test systems where you need to move the DUT or sensor around, etc. Well, now I left NI, and being located in Taiwan, this give us an advantage for sourcing various electronics and embedded systems. My partners and I started TENET Technologies this year, and I pitched to them and said ... you know what? What if we made a motion controller for LabVIEW users? I'm reluctant to believe that, just because NI has forfeited this market, that LabVIEW users don't need motion controllers anymore. Without NI's solution, users are burdened with having to risk compatibility issues with other motion controllers, AND also have to deal with APIs that look like dismissive afterthoughts. I've researched many different APIs from 3rd party vendors, and usually they look something like this: Uggh, yuck. This really defeats the purpose of using LabVIEW, by having an ill-defined API. We couldn't stand it anymore. With TENET GECO Motion, we set out to make motion control a first class citizen in LabVIEW once more. See our solution here: https://promo.tenet-tech.co/motion So recently we just released our first version, and we're continuously looking for feedback to make it better. I'm running a survey to get feedback for your needs and wishes in a motion controller for LabVIEW. We can't get to everything right away, but feedback from the LabVIEW community would be SUPER helpful. Survey is linked here: https://forms.gle/Zz31RcsaX5keS4Pg9. As a token of appreciation, I'll be giving out Starbucks $10USD gift cards to 5 lucky winners. Survey ends by the end of this week, hope to hear from you! 🙏 -John Wu TENET Technologies
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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