ShaunR

Is there a CAR or some document detailing the findings?

My oldest software that hasn't become "vapourware" seems to be the "windows_api_1.0.llb".It was written in LabVIEW 5 in the late 1990s but think I had it internally for a couple of years before I released it. It is posted in the CR after someone asked for it and is identical to the original except it was recompiled for 2009 and later so people could actually use it. Here is the original in LabVIEW 5. I can't actually open it any more but I'm pretty sure it is identical to the CR one. windows_api_1.0.llb

I doubt if you are willing to elaborate on that. I expect it was an obtuse, back-handed, compliment. Programmers that advocate "Ad-hoc reuse" are cut from the same cloth as those that say they are green minded, concerned for the environment and recycle just because they reuse their shopping bags as bin(trash) liners.

It's starting to sound very much like you have a race condition or two somewhere. Extra messages could be due to retries but could also be due to reading the same value twice (especially happens with notifiers). So you are losing messages sometimes and gaining messages sometimes. All seemingly randomly tied to arbitrary and unconnected system conditions. That is a code smell I am very familiar with.

"Data mining" just isn't a phrase I use for programming at all. I don't see software as data - more a tool for manipulating data. I wouldn't say I "data mine" a laptop to recover components and I see software the same. So whilst I could write software to "data mine" I would never think to use it as a phrase for code reuse. No and no and no and no. Not only are you hell bent on the tortured use of "reuse" but now you want to torture "reference" as well. Just stop it "Ad-hoc reuse" is a phrase made up by script kiddies because they can't write proper code at all and have to steal others'. It isn't a thing..

Well. don't keep us in suspense. Where's the rest of it? Components, yes but........ I know that was probably a throw away statement but it's something that annoys me and I see/hear newbies and oldies parroting without thinking. If you meant by "data mining" the process of taking an unmodified chunk of an old project and use it "by reference", i,e, place the VIs on diagrams or link via code interface nodes then yes, it is reuse [of an informal library]. You just haven't reused it enough to make it formal. However. Copying and pasting or copying and modifying (forking) of an old project/code isn't reuse - it's replication. It is just a tortured interpretation of the English word to make an anti-pattern sound like a good thing when making a reuse library is too much effort or its reuse would be too limited. "Your Honour! I just copied the dollar bill onto another piece of paper. I was simply reusing it " I now use the term "reuse-by-reference" to explicitly exclude these abominations from the definition. If you are "data mining" by copying code then it is an opportunity to define a reuse-by-reference subsystem/library but is not, in and of itself, reuse.

Rolf's given you the technical reasons and history. So ignoring cross-platform (big one for me, especially as I'm now moving away from Windows) , performance and falling to pieces when IT push out a security updates. Here are some real world, LabVIEW specific examples. Thread Starvation Obsolecence. Deadlocks.(see note at bottom) Like Rolf says. When they work-fine. When they don't; they are self contained bundles of nightmares that you can only remove (if you can get into the IDE ). I just prefer not to put them in in the first place.

Memory [re]allocations in diagrams are expensive and Boolean operator performance is trivial in comparison?. If you have to worry about a few nanoseconds of fundamental operations, then a general purpose desktop is not the platform to use?

I think you should. This thread prompted me to hunt around to see if I could find a Eurotherm Controls serial driver (Modbus and EI-Bisynch) that I wrote thousands of years ago It was the first driver I ever wrote and was my first public submission to the world. I think I even submitted it to the NI drivers library but it's not there now - there is a newer one there now without the EI-Bysinch. I guess it was my first vapourware :

​That's really sad. It probably means that it wasn't modular enough to be re-purposed or adapt to changing requirements. I expect your software has come a long way since then. I think it's lying that reuse is 98% though I must admit I don't use the Gateway thing. It may have changed since I last used it, some 5 years ago but it was more of a trace-ability function which isn't all that helpful for day-to-day programming and customers are only really interested in acceptance tests. As in internal tool I can see it might have benefits, but it doesn't provide what I need on a say-to-day basis. Like your tool, I have software that does the bits of it that are interesting such as coverage but I don't care about complexity or pretty graphs or a myriad of other metrics that are just numbers to "ooh" and "ahh" over. I care about broken VIs, orphans, re-entrant or not etc that affect the performance and operation rather than the accountancy.. Complexity or nesting depth is a poor indication of that. However, the tool that I've had for several years now is plug-able and extensible so it hasn't suffered the same fate even though it started out as pretty much the same sort of tool. In fact, 6 months ago it had a face-lift from the standard millennial white, system front, panel to a moody dark which is all the rage now ​ ​

Eliminate that and see if it goes away (simulate the data if you have to). There is a very good reason why ,NET (and it's grandpapy, ActiveX) is banned from all my LabVIEW projects and this stinks of ,NET threading and LabVIEW root loop.

Actually there are company overheads. your mortgage, car payments, medical insurance, food and so on. These are taken into account (I hope) when you decide on your hourly rate. If this is your first foray into contracting, I highly recommend quoting on a time and expenses basis and providing a preliminary project plan with deliverables and milestones for them to sign off. Fixed price quoting is very dangerous for the inexperienced. If you are fixed price quoting then your "profit" is on the hardware and services as a value added supplier (usually 5-10% of cost), and your hourly rate which you make up based on how much you think you need to live your lifestyle and how much the market can bear. There is no overall "project profit percentage". When you negotiate, you negotiate less time and less hardware provisioning until you and the customer agree to the minimum effort and hardware supplies (from you) required to do the task. If that is still not good enough then your extra "margin" is on the hardware so you can go from, say, 10% to 5% If that is still not good enough - walk away because you aren't making any money!

​ ​Yes - fundamentally impossible from your perspective LabVIEW (or more specifically, G) isn't an interpreted language like Javascript or Python and it can evaluate the components of your expression in parallel, unlike procedural languages. So "b OR c" might be evaluated 10 hrs before "a" since an expression, or a component of an expression, is evaluated when the data is available, not when a program pointer steps to the next line.- that's dataflow for you ​

​ ​Indeed. However I would suggest using a key file. If you already have SSH access (which I presume you do) then you just point Filezilla to the private key file You can then disable username/password authentication completely on the server.. This is far more secure but difficulties arise with many (hundreds) of users. However having many users requiring SSH access is not a usual use-case in LabVIEW.

​Not having played with a myRIO or other Linux RT (yet!) so I might be off track. But if it has SSH then it probably has SFTP Edit: Sometime later​, after searching to see if there was a wmware image of the NI Linux real-time somewhere (silly fool for even thinking this might be a thing), I came across the Linux RT whitepaper. . ​So there ya go. ------------------- ​Incidentally. It seems that the document also states that FTP was removed (not included?) in Linux RT in LabVIEW 2013 (or maybe that was just when they added webdav) ​ ​[Except the SFTP, of course!]

​I think that has been superseded by sc.exe (comand line) and Srvinstw.exe (GUI version) which means you don't have to hack the registry any more.

I can find no statement to that effect. (I don't have a 2014 RIO; only 2013). This was published on Oct 16, 2015 so hopefully it is just an oversight as it references a 2011 document.

There is an unsecured FTP server on RT devices that is enabled by default. Do people turn this off when deploying as a habit or procedure?

I was just checking to see if it was still the main repository. Can we put a link on the CR page?

Is this no longer on Bitbucket? Where is the repository now?

Point and click FTW. Typing is so 1980s Seeing as you went for a Rube Golberg footswitch solution , maybe it would be fun to try a head tracking one? There's some home-made ones around as well as off-the shelf that are used for gaming. You only need 3 LEDs and a webcam. There is something very appealing about the thought of using a nod as "Return" and a head-shake for "Escape". You could just look up slightly to put the caps lock on, maybe?

Am I right in thinking you are a full fingered typist? i.e. you type with all fingers like a secretary with hand position as static as possible? To activate, say CTRL+R you would then twist your hand and separate the pinky? I was looking at how I type. I'm kind of a 3 fingered (neanderthal ) typist (index, middle and thumb for space bar). This means that when I operate the control key I move my whole hand and my pinky is bent downwards/inwards but parallel to the others. So my pivot point is the elbow controlled by the biceps and shoulders rather than the wrist. I wonder if it would benefit you to just swap the ALT and CTRL keys to bring it closer to your hand position?

Got for it Hmm. The version in the CR is later than in the repository. Maybe drjdpowell is building off of his own branch?

Not at all. Just saying it's been discussed before and there was no consensus. People were more worried about NULL

It was discussed in the past. The problem is that the JSON spec forbids it specifically.