Val Brown

This will be my third -- or fourth? -- NI Week and I've enjoyed the prior ones immensely. Yes, choose the events you want to attend and plan to get there early if they are advanced LV topics, given by "name" presenters. Last year there were overflow rooms for some very important and highly useful presentations. A number of complaints were lodged about that and, hopefully, NI has taken the hint and will schedule those presentations in far, far larger rooms. Personally I wouldn't take the certification exams during NI Week -- except perhaps CLA which may only be given there(???). Why take the exams there and miss out on important information you can't easily get elsewhere? You can always schedule to take exams with your sales engineer (except perhaps CLA, but idk that for sure). Yes, you may pay some more money to do so but why pay for NI Week and miss the presentations?

From what I've been reading it sounds like this could be a scripting issue, perhaps even a right-click add-on: viz, to search the entire project for items beyond the boundaries of a structure and report that location, along with the number of items that are "hidden".

I also use the Windows included defrag routines, both in XP and Vista and have no complaints about them.

Yes it does suck, definitely. But I suspect this is also going to be the trend this year: ie an overall smaller number of attendees due to budgeting decisions.

Yes, all of those resources are really great. I'm thinking about the OO course myself but there is a real opportunity here for NI and I for one think it would be a real shame for them to miss it.

Congrats on the CLD and I want to underscore the book idea. This is something that NI should consider to be a priority IMO. After all the biggest criticism of LV is that it's a "toy" and that's largely because it isn't seen as a real support of OO. The status of LVOOP is now directly challenging that belief and writing the book on it would be a good opportunity for NI to communicate clearly just how capable LV really is. It would also give me a really nice running start at getting on board with it.... Seriously you code develop the code (as you've done) and someone on NI's staff to ghost the text and/or you could team up with someone (like Jim Kring) and do "LVOOP for Everyone".

And NI can retire that particular question on the CLD exam. Other questions/examples/problems can always be derived.

Absolutely outstanding work! Well done and thanks for providing such an invaluable resource.

QUOTE (Omar Mussa @ Jun 5 2009, 06:02 PM) Is this tool separate from OpenG or does it require OpenG?

QUOTE (ShaunR @ May 31 2009, 02:57 AM) I don't want to start a flame war here, not do I want to hijack this thread, but IMO you are completely offbase with this comment and thinking. I have NO degree in CS. I have no "official" programming/programmer's background. I have been on SSP since 98 -- for several years for both Mac and Windows versions. And I only program for my own project even though I have been asked repeatedly to program for others. And I KNOW I'm not the only "non-programmer" in the NI world but I also know that I've put NI through its paces in terms of number of CARs issued, etc over the years. In contrast to your comment about "typical Microsoft..." I would say that you perspective is "typical OOPs: meaning Object Oriented Programmers 'stuff'". Let it go man. Look at the BIG picture -- which is the basis on which NI has not only survived but thrived by NOT primarily catering to nor orienting itself to "Programmers". OK end of rant and end of comments on this perspective.

QUOTE (ShaunR @ May 30 2009, 01:50 PM) Why do you think it's so horrific? It makes a great deal of sense to me -- for what THAT's worth -- and it is an honest reflection of the nature of NIs products and orientation.

QUOTE (Aristos Queue @ May 30 2009, 09:28 AM) And you COULD even wrap that functionality into a VI that was called "Create..." and feed in which control to expose.... Kind of make an object out of if desired.

QUOTE (Aristos Queue @ May 29 2009, 09:50 AM) Nicely done AQ et al to have gotten this released. Perhaps an event/presentation at NI Week on how to use scripting would be a good idea? I do hope it doesn't create too many support headaches for NI. That will make it more likely that NI would decide to release other "features" on a "need to know" and "at your own risk" basis.

QUOTE (jdunham @ Apr 27 2009, 08:09 AM) Maybe it's time to put this into a queue that has no dequeue or maybe a global variable that is never read.....

Zhuang-zi (Chuang-Tzu) because most of his "text" was in pictures (pictograms) that carried additional "cartoon" messages, beyond the literal text/transcript.

QUOTE (ned @ Apr 17 2009, 05:44 AM) Shane et al: Yes that's what I thought but I guess the background implication in asking it that way is: Why isn't it internet enabled and/or why can't that be done just for this one operation? CRELF: Yes, I'm sure you're right because the only possible timeline I've heard discussed is that scripting will be released AFTER all the toolkits are implemented for Linus and Mac and the timeline for THAT to happen was something like "...when Bush gets elected for the third time."

QUOTE (Jim Kring @ Apr 16 2009, 05:14 PM) How about "Release Scripting!"? QUOTE (Val Brown @ Apr 16 2009, 07:42 PM) How about "Release Scripting!"? ...or "Liberatus Scriptus"

QUOTE (ShaunR @ Apr 16 2009, 01:11 PM) I do all of that online in one operation so I'm not sure what's happening on your system except, perhaps, it's not online?

QUOTE (TobyD @ Apr 15 2009, 11:28 AM) Ditto for me.

QUOTE (bsvingen @ Apr 13 2009, 01:43 AM) And this COULD be made clear through thorough "unit testing" throughout the development cycle.

QUOTE (bsvingen @ Apr 11 2009, 02:08 AM) I think YOU "just don't get it". NOT using undocumented features means, among other things, "assuring everything is well defined, minimizing side effects and by reusing things you know have no failure modes". In other words, do use/reuse undocumented features UNLESS you are clear in what they will and won't do and you have validated all of that with specific unit testing, etc procedures. Your last point really says it all IMO: "Is it possible to be (reasonably) sure that things are well defined without documenting it so other people can look at it, or at least leave the source open?" The answer is: Yes and, if not, then don't use it; and validate that by your own systematic testing program regardless. It also sounds like this is another plea for LV to be open source based on the belief that open source is inherently "better" than code that is not open source (such as LV). If that is what you truly believe, then why are you using LV? How do you rationalize that your behavior -- in using LV -- contradicts what you're posting here?

QUOTE (jdunham @ Apr 10 2009, 08:27 AM) You ask interesting questions to which I would reply: I'm certain that the compiler DOES contain undocumented features. I'm also certain the the OS does as well. And neither of those conditions means that it is unpredictable -- UNLESS (perhaps) one uses those undocumented features. For years Ken Thompson used to deny that there were ANY "back doors" into the Unix kernel. We all KNEW that there were. Ultimately he did confirm that they were there. I've never seen an OS nor a compiler that doesn't have undocumented features but, then again, I'm pretty much a realist and, if the unit testing process works so outcomes can be validated, that works for me. So who knows? There may well be an OS and/or compiler that has absolutely NO undocumented features whatsoever. I don't really care because I gave up on idealizations a couple of decades ago.

QUOTE (bsvingen @ Apr 10 2009, 12:37 AM) OK, you believe it's unethical. None the less, it happens and varieties of it happen all the time by design and that is sometimes not documented BECAUSE it's "experimental". Calling it unethical to do that really doesn't change much in what happens in the real world nor does it alter the fact that this happens for many good reasons not the least of which is that it really is impossible to anticipate all possible failure modes of a real-time, physically implemented system. So, if you are going to be consistent with your beliefs -- and also not be unethical yourself -- I would guess that means that you can no longer use LabVIEW.

I'll see you in Portland.

QUOTE (bsvingen @ Apr 8 2009, 09:26 PM) I think if you speak to those who have flown those aircraft you will find that there are actually experimental "options" in them. AFAIK there has never been an operational aircraft, let alone other complex system, that is completely closed and "insulated" in the way you suggest.