crelf

QUOTE(mesmith @ May 15 2007, 12:52 AM) QUOTE(LV Punk @ May 15 2007, 02:21 AM) I don't disagree that OOP is useful, but I don't see it as "the way to go" in this case. My argument is that a driver developed for distribution to users needs to be... I'd still go the OO route, but, for the reasons you guys have pointed out, I wouldn't use LVOOP: I'd use dqGOOP or OpenGOOP instead.

QUOTE(dsaunders @ May 15 2007, 01:37 AM) What do you mean? I just picked a random integrator You're absolutely right: Disclaimer: I am an employee of the most-excellent http://www.viengineering.com/' target="_blank">V I Engineering, Inc., a fabulous National Instruments Select Alliance Partner, chocked full of Certified LabVIEW and TestStand Developers and Architects...

QUOTE(LV Punk @ May 14 2007, 11:39 PM) QUOTE(Tomi Maila @ May 14 2007, 11:29 PM) I strogly recommend using object-oriented design for the instrument drivers. Object-oriented programming allows you to write generic interface class for all of your instruments and a specific driver implementation class for each of your instrument. All instruments can then be accessed using the generic interface class method VIs allowing to write generic programs that can use any of your instruments. These guys have absolutely got it right: if your instruments have enough commonality, you can combine both of these techniques so that with a simple *IDN? query at initialise object and can filter out the functions that aren't supported by your hardware. Depending on the hardware, writing a comprehensive driver can be difficult, so if you're not confident, I'd contact a system integrator.

QUOTE(Mike Ashe @ May 13 2007, 11:02 AM) That's far too grrrooooovey for me

QUOTE(BobHamburger @ May 13 2007, 02:06 PM) :thumbup: Bob's absolutely right - LabVIEW's not your most appropriate tool for this kind of job, and trying to implement it in LabVIEW will be a waste of time and money (just like trying to write a comprehensive text exec in LabVIEW is much less efficient than just using TestStand). I suggest you Lookout! That's a much more appropriate tool for what you need, and even if it doesn't quite cover everything you're trying to do, you can develop your own Lookout components using the Lookout Object Developers Toolkit (requires c/c++ knowledge and a compiler - now if only we could create Lookout objects with LabVIEW...)

QUOTE(Michael_Aivaliotis @ May 13 2007, 11:54 AM) Yeah - it's difficult for a browser to be fully compliant with only one "standard" when so many sites and pages demand it to go outside that standard.

QUOTE(Michael_Aivaliotis @ May 13 2007, 09:42 AM) Interesting, isn't it? Even if you try to load an xml file that you created, and know that it's clean, your browser will probably tell you that it has errors, or is unsafe and something was blocked (even though it still displays perfectly) - I never understood that...

QUOTE(Michael_Aivaliotis @ May 13 2007, 08:17 AM) Great idea - who's up creating the page?

QUOTE(yen @ May 13 2007, 07:33 AM) Consider my mind appeased

Great job everyone, but wouldn't a more appropriate place be in a wiki page that everyone can just edit, rather than having to scroll down through what could end up being several pages of posts?

QUOTE(Mike Ashe @ May 12 2007, 12:59 AM) That's a shame, because I don't know whcih one I missed - I certainly wasn't trying to mislead anyone. AFAIK, you can download a copy of LabVIEW 8.2.1 from ni.com http://digital.ni.com/demo.nsf/websearch/14f9ce475127ade786256ac60070926c?opendocument' target="_blank">here and then trial it for 30 days - what about that isn't "The Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing But The Truth"? What don't I know about?

QUOTE(tcplomp @ May 13 2007, 05:51 AM) Until iTomorrow.

QUOTE(Michael_Aivaliotis @ May 8 2007, 02:12 PM) Brilliant

QUOTE(hooovahh @ May 12 2007, 12:55 AM) I wasn't trying to belligerent - I'm just one person, and just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that you should stop giving your opinion.

That is really cool - LAVA on an NI internal PC QUOTE(Ami @ May 11 2007, 11:14 PM) ...and if you need to trial it for longer than 3 hours at a time, you can always download LabVIEW and run it in evaluation mode for 30 days. QUOTE(hooovahh @ May 11 2007, 11:26 PM) I mean LabVIEW isn't the best programming language unless you add on all the DAQ, and Real-Time Embedded support that NI gives it with the hardware that they provide. I don't want to hijack this thread, but that totally depends on what you mean by "best" - you could arguably say that about any programming language.

QUOTE(yen @ May 11 2007, 06:38 PM) You know me so well!

QUOTE(Herbert @ May 11 2007, 04:04 AM) I'm more of a varinat... QUOTE(Herbert @ May 11 2007, 04:04 AM) I like the idea, but adding it to the emoticons will make that popup several square feet large... I wonder if we can have more than one? One for emoticons and one for LabVIEW icons?

QUOTE(Eugen Graf @ May 11 2007, 07:26 AM) that's not an uncommon thing when doing your first OO project. Remeber that one of the most important things about OO is encapsulation of both data and functionality: instead of just wrapping functions, you can put several of them in a method and/or make access to raw data private allowing only formatted data to be public for example.

QUOTE(LV Punk @ May 10 2007, 09:30 PM) I think that's an excellent idea! Even if er don't have a menu to access them, you can still upload them to the wiki space and then reference to them (just like we're doing now with the extra emoticons) - maybe that's the solutions: create a new thread where you can add images of elements that you can reference to later.

QUOTE(Eugen Graf @ May 10 2007, 01:17 AM) I don't have time to answer all your questions right now, but here's a few comments: Yes, Endevo's GOOP costs extra $, but if you need the extra functionality it's worth it There are several other GOOP implementations out there that are free or very cheap, including (but not limited to) dqGOOP and OpenGOOP As for understanding LVOOP Vs GOOP, I don't agree: I think it's what you're first introduced to. For example: do you use the config file VIs on the palette? If so, then you're using GOOP. LV-OOP certainly is an excellent step in the world of LabVIEW, but for those of us who learned by-reference first, it's tricky to change our habits, as it's a different underlying paradigm. Sorry for my briefness...

QUOTE(chrisdavis @ May 8 2007, 10:00 AM) http://wiki.lavag.org/index.php/Help:Starting_a_new_page' target="_blank">Here's a good place to start.

QUOTE(gleichman @ Apr 19 2007, 12:41 PM) Like http://wiki.lavag.org/index.php/LabVIEW_ini_File.Easter_Eggs' target="_blank">this.

Hi All, I've just finished migrating, entering, typing, and eye straining to bring you the new LabVIEW ini File Configuration wiki: LabVIEW Configuration file As you can see, the article is full of all sorts of well known (and some lesser known) settings, including datatype descriptors, default values, OS requirements and more. Just like all of our wiki pages, anyone can edit it: if you see an entry there that's not quite right or don't see one there that you know exists, please please please edit it so we can all share from the most up-to-date information. :thumbup: A huuuuuuge thanks goes to Brian Renken, who graciously permitted me to use the settings listed on his page as a starting point - cheers mate!

QUOTE(Dan Bookwalter @ May 8 2007, 04:48 AM) A quick google confirms that the phone number you have is right, but I've no idea whether they're still around or not... Mr. Kenneth Tumidajski Testand Corporation 99 Beverage Hill Avenue Pawtucket, RI 02860-6214 Phone: 401-724-0306 Fax: 401-724-9320

QUOTE(BrokenArrow @ May 8 2007, 01:53 AM) That's real purdy _ I've never seen that one before.