crelf

IMHO: There's a post that deserves a kudos!

Ahhhh 7.1.1 - one of my favorite version (5.1.1 is up there too).

I don't think there's much extra work implementing in VISA than raw GPIB, so I'd go for VISA. That's said, it's been a while since I've used raw GPIB. Also, there are a handful of oddities with each physical layer, so your application *might* require you to use GPIB only, but those oddities are very very rare, and VISA does have GPIB-specific properties, so you should be good.

LVOOP is by-value, just like almost everything else in LabVIEW, so don't think of it like "how do I access objects across parallel loops", instead think of it as "how do I acess <anything> across parallel loops". ...just noticed that Aristos already answered the question better than me

I think they're useful for high-level conceptual designs and also good for brain-storming sessions. That said, they're easily overused, so draw a line in the sand on when/where you want to use them, and where other tools are more appropriate. We use Mindjet MindManager.

For the record, and as an aside, NI isn't forcing anyone to upgrade their verson of LabVIEW every year. I know a number of ppl still stuck on 7.1 because it does everything that they need and nothing that they don't, so they have no real reason to upgrade.

Yeah - I agree that the wording on that webpage should be a little better than it currently is. At least the bugfix and SSP sentances could be spaced much further apart...

That is my point exactly - don't assume that your model is the only professional model, and there are reasons that people use other models. ...and I agree that you shouldn't charge for bugfixes - as long as that's what they are. In the model I mentioned, they're only bugs until they get past the SAT. After that, they're feature requests.

Well, that's not the only professional model There's also the model where you have well defined and signed off requirements, and if the system meets those requirements (traceably through and acceptance test proceedure) then it's done. Then, if the customer comes back a couple of years later and complains about bugs, what they're actually complaining about is out-of-scope features. Of course, it's never quite as black and white as that, but I just wanted to point out that not fixing "bugs" after delivery doesn't necessarily mean that your not professional. In fact, the model I mentioned is what most regulated industry customers expect and insist upon.

But is that an edge case? My understanding was that you can only drop the SSP under special circumstances - it's not just a matter of unclicking a checkbox on NI's wbesite. PS: SSP might still make sense to them - as Jeff said, there's more than just bugfixes in an SSP

That's a really good point - if you've got LabVIEW 2009 and don't have an SSP then you somehow got around the system. Therefore, this issue shouldn't be effecting anyone...

Depends on how complex or entreched the bugs are I guess... I've had bugs to fix that took between a few minutes and a few months, although a few minutes is rare since I usually need to do a lot of validation afterwards (including re-checking things that the bugfix may have affected), so I don't think code fixes based on 30 hours per bug can be called good or bad - it is what it is.

I remember doing turtle programming in 3rd grade (it's not important what year that was...)

There's something I totally agree on - I think if there's to be a serious beta, then we'd need to run it in parallel with an already released version on a real project - that's where we'd find the majority of bugs. That said, my guess is that NI's already done an FMEA or the like on this process and are comfortable with the current methodology. Anyway, I didn't mean to hijack this thread with a beta schism - my point was that I didn't agree that I writes "crappy" code per se - we all live and code in the real world, and I think that labelling NI's code as "crappy" is unfair. Besides, if you seriously think that NI's code has had a negative impact on your business, then give your local FSE a call and they might be able to help you. NI isn't a faceless corporation, and they're not out to screw you with bad product.

I'm not going to argue about the SSP, but I do take exception with "Stop writing crappy code" <- NI's code isn't crappy. In fact, it's of an excellent standard. The problem is that LabVIEW (and all the associated toolkits) contains millions of lines of code, and they can't (and IMHO shouldn't) test every single line of it for every single permutation - that's just not possible. They use a different strategy: the beta programme, where the average Joe can find out if what NI's thinking of releasing will work for what they want - their own use cases. In short, if you want better code (ie: code that works for your specific use case(s)) then test it within the beta programme.

I'm sure you'd be able to make something really easily with JKI's RCF. SCC isn't a luxury - it's a necessity, and easy to implement.

Indeed. Norm's post was not moderated - he included text suggesting that it was moderated to be funny.

As an aside, I prefer to disable and gray controls rather than hiding them. Or, if you must hide them, put them on a admin page of a tab control and the switch pages depending on who is logged on.

Sorry for the late follow-up - I only just saw your post. I can schedule a 1-on-1 meeting with you if you're interested (PM me), but here's some general info on our ATES product platform: VIE ATES Overview.pdf

You gotta admit that Norm's kinda cute...

...and some of the men

We've had a great response to our call to action - so good in fact that we're no longer accepting any more temporary moderators Thanks to everyone for your interest in helping out!

LAVA is looking for a handful of people to help us clear off the shackles of LAVA 1.0 so we can move forward more easily with 2.0. If you've got a few spare minutes every now and then (think, while having a morning cup of joe, over lunch, sitting on the can - okay, maybe don't actually *think* about sitting on the can) then we could really use your help. We've been slowly migrating the old LAVA 1.0 content to the new site, but the progress it going more slowly than we'd expected. So we'd like your help. All we need is a few minutes each day over the next couple of months or so to get all the content from the LAVA 1.0 placeholder subforum to appropriate places in the LAVA 2.0 forums. You will have elevated privileges for the time it takes to move all the old content. There are no prizes for those who move the most, but we'll post the usernames of those who volunteer to help out and heap steaming piles of praise on you, and you'll have the warm glow of accomplishment in helping out your community to boot. Our aim is to have the old subforum empty and offline by the end of April, and there are about 9,000 threads to be moved, so it's a pretty ambitious task, but we think that, with the right people, we can get it done. If you're interested in helping out, please PM me here.

crelf: LAVA / NIDevZone

I think what Ben was getting at is that he's 1 NI Knight (requires 10000 posts) *and* 1/10 LAVA Knight (with his 1000 posts).