Rolf Kalbermatter

Thanks for your feedback. I'm not the legal owner of Lua for LabVIEW, only the maintainer. It is unfortunately not my decision how it is distributed/sold. But even if it was, I don't think I would actually open source it. But I would probably make it free.

I tried hard to ignore your poisonous whisperings but eventually succumbed to it. 🤫

Hey, I didn't talk about code! This was about advertisement and commerce. (And my lost privilege, which indeed hurts my sensitive soul a little 😁. It's soul crushing to read an old post of myself and discover typos in it.)

Are you seriously expecting anyone to install a random executable on their system from an unknown publisher, provided by an anonymous person on the web, where one can't even get a proper link in Google to the actual company page? Sorry, but anyone doing that should not be allowed near 5m of a computer system!

F*ck! 😁 And I lost my privilege of being allowed to edit posts indefinitely some years ago for unexplained reason. Ohh well! Not sure I care at this point very much. I just suck at commercial promotional stuff and am admitting it.

It's still maintained and sold, although not actively marketed. https://luaforlabview.com/

Not starting but want to try to do a cRIO variant of a few things such as the OpenG ZIP library, Lua for LabVIEW, and especially my OPC UA Toolkit.

Nothing is impossible but often so painful that not doing it is almost in every case the better option. The label of the data in the variant is the label of the data element that was used to create the variant. The variant has also a label but that is one level higher. You could of course modify JSON to Text, but that is a lot of work. And I think it is up to James if he feels like this would be a justified effort. Personally I absolutely would understand if he feels like "Why bother".

I can't understand Chinese and the video only shows some highlights, not how it works. My assumption it that they might use Windows Controls. It's a possibility but the effort needed to create a toolkit like that for use in LabVIEW is ENORMOUS. If it exists and you really absolutely want to do this for any price, buy the toolkit no matter how expensive. Trying to do that yourself is an infinite project! Believe me!

A bit confusing. You talk about French but show an English front panel. But what you see is a typical Unicode String displayed as ASCII. On Windows, Unicode is so called UTF16LE. For all the first 127 ASCII codes this means that each character results in two bytes, with the first byte being the ASCII code and the second byte being 0x00. LabVIEW does display a space for non-printable characters and 0x00 is non-printable unlike in C where it is the End Of String indicator. So you will have to make sure the control is Unicode enabled. Now Unicode support in LabVIEW is still experimental (present but not a released feature) and there are many areas where it doesn't work as desired. You do need to add a special keyword to the INI file to enable it and in many cases also enable a special (normally non-visible) property on the control. It may be that the Tab labels need to have this property enabled separately or that Unicode support for this part of the UI is one of the areas that is not fully implemented. Use of Unicode UI in LabVIEW is still an unreleased feature. It may or may not work, depending on your specific circumstances and while NI is currently actively working on making this a full feature, they have not made any promises when it will be ready for the masses.

First, attaching your question to random (multiple) threads is not a very efficient way of seeking help. I'm not sure I understand your question correctly. But there is the Application Builder, which is included in the Professional Development License of LabVIEW, that lets you create an executable. It still requires the LabVIEW Runtime Engine to be installed on computers to be able to run it, but you can also create an Installer with the Application Builder that includes all the necessary installation components in addition to your own executable file.

I haven't recently tried to use that information but will have to soon for a few projects. From a quick cursory glance it would seem still relevant. There is of course the issue of computer technology in general and Linux especially being a continuous moving target, so I would guess there might be slight variations nowadays to what was the latest knowledge when that document was written, but in general it seems still accurate.

I can't really remember ever having seen such a request. And to be honest never felt the need for it. Thinking about it it makes some sense to support it and it would probably be not that much of work for the LabVIEW programmers, but development priorities are always a bitch. I can think of several dozen other things that I would rather like to have and that have been pushed down the priority list by NI for many years. The best chance to have something like this ever considered is to add it to the LabVIEW idea Exchange https://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW-Idea-Exchange/idb-p/labviewideas. That is unless you know one of the LabVIEW developers personally and have some leverage to pressure them into doing it. 😁

Absolutely echo what Shaun says. Nobody banned them. But most who tried to use them have after some more or less short time run from them, with many hairs ripped out of their head, a few nervous tics from to much caffeine consume and swearing to never try them again. The idea is not really bad and if you are willing to suffer through it you can make pretty impressive things with them, but the execution of that idea is anything but ideal and feels in many places like a half thought out idea that was eventually abandoned when it was kind of working but before it was a really easily usable feature.

It's a little more complicated than that. You do not just need an *.o file but in fact an *.o file for every c(pp) source file in that library and then link it into a *.so file (the Linux equivalent of a Windows dll). Also there are two different cRIO families the 906x which runs Linux compiled for an ARM CPU and the 903x, 904x, 905x, 908x which all run Linux compiled for a 64-bit Intel x686 CPU. Your *.so needs to be compiled for the one of these two depending on the cRIO chassis you want to run it on. Then you need to install that *.so file onto the cRIO. In addition you would have to review all the VIs to make sure that it still applies to the functions as exported by this *.so file. I haven't checked the h5F library but there is always a change that the library has difference for different platforms because of the available features that the platform provides. The thread you mentioned already showed that alignment was obviously a problem. But if you haven't done any C programming it is not very likely that you get this working in a reasonable time.