Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


X___ last won the day on January 26

X___ had the most liked content!


Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

LabVIEW Information

  • Version
    LabVIEW 2021
  • Since

Recent Profile Visitors

4,599 profile views

X___'s Achievements


Collaborator (7/14)

  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • Reacting Well Rare
  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Dedicated Rare

Recent Badges



  1. Simple: to be understood by and be able to share code with others in academia. I have a few options: python, MATLAB, Mathematica, possibly C/C++ but certainly not LabVIEW. I dabble in all other languages, but in terms of cost and adoption, the choice is easy. I understand that for automation and delivering slick UI to paying customers it might not cut it, but if Emerson drops it, everyone will have to reconsider their options. As far as I am concerned, the writing has been on the wall a long time ago as far as LabVIEW was concerned. What saddens me the most is that its graphical paradigm hasn't percolated (much) in other languages (Node-Red and some other experiments being rare and not-so-impressive exceptions).
  2. I don't know about that. For me multithreading works when all my cores usage are maxed out. I see that in both LabVIEW code and Python code.
  3. I wonder whether Emerson knows that, and if so, what their logical conclusion will be moving forward. I mean, I have no doubt what they will decide.
  4. My bad, I did not fully fleshed my proposal to Jeff K. I did not mean to rewrite LabVIEW in Python, but import some of the graphical concepts of LabVIEW into Python. Here is it: develop a Python module that allows representing python code graphically. The execution parallelism implemented in LabVIEW would probably be the trickiest part, but I am not sure I would require it initially. And implement some type and syntax checking breaking the "diagrams" at edit time rather than at compile/runtime (typos is what I hate in text-based languages).
  5. You mean that sentence: I am not sure he means LabVIEW when he thinks "new technologies". After all that is more the purview of Colonel Kodosky... Who probably wouldn't mind a few extra 100 million dollars for... what about spinning off G and funding an open source project making a graphical Python-based LabVIEW?
  6. That's maybe because, according to Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/emerson-makes-76-bln-bid-ni-corp-2023-01-17/), (company with a green and blue-themed website too...). So, their interest is probably not in supporting the development of a niche software that once pretended to be the programming language to run them all (or did it?) but is certainly not anymore. A lot of people at NI should probably get busy updating their profiles and checking job offers, if they had not been thinking of it after AQ's departure... BTW, I don't quite understand your previous argument that cofounders having a majority of shares would oppose a sale? Why would they not try to get as much money out of the sale and leave their families/heirs with a comfortable fortune to spend the rest of their lives?
  7. I see...nothing. In any case, they already have taken Ni's color(s). Or is it the opposite? And as far as their slogan: "Go Boldly", this will be easy to merge with NI's: "Go boldly and engineer ambitiously... for twice the price!".
  8. If I had wanted to be ironical, I would have typed LabVIEW 2023 Q5. And twitted it!
  9. They are trying their best to snap NI at a bargain price, knowing full well that the picture will completely change when LabVIEW 2023 Q4 will be released, instantly doubling the value of NI share price.
  10. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ni-appoints-cfo-140000382.html
  11. https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/ni-explore-options-including-sale-amid-interest-emerson-electric-sources-2023-01-13/
  12. Somebody please give access to LabVIEW source code to Rofl, pretty please?
  13. Someone gives Rolf access to the source code, pretty please?
  14. No. That was my second error in two attempts, so I considered the experiment done for me for the time being. I had a similar experience with stabilityai (the graphic AI) where the outputs I got were complete garbage, so I suppose I am just not doing it right and don't have the patience to "play" with the thing. Apparently, for pure text stuff, you need to reiterate and massage the question to get something that is acceptable. For LabVIEW code, by the way, the latter tool might be more appropriate... or not (try it at https://huggingface.co/spaces/stabilityai/stable-diffusion). Here are the results of ("a LabVIEW diagram adding two numbers" - Negative prompt: "not a NXG diagram"): One more reason to switch to Python?
  • Create New...

Important Information

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