Val Brown

I'm there too.

CRELF, I thought it was AQ who said he was paying your ticket. Hmmm, maybe it was something about "punching your ticket".....oh well....

Why I won't be pushing the G envelope in code I share with the community in the future:

https://decibel.ni.c...nt/thread/13544

FWIW I agree with this stance. It's actually very simple. LV is NOT open source. Never has been and very, very likely never will be. Nor, IMHO, should it be. If someone believes otherwise than build a lookalike and open it up to everyone. I'll expect that to happen about the same time that about the same instant that we discover how to travel time and, to verify that, I'll be there to congratulate you on both achievements.

You can right-click on the top-level project item and choose "Find Items with No Callers". This should generally do what you want, with a couple of caveats:

1. Your top-level application VI(s) will be listed, so ignore those.

2. Items in Dependencies will be listed. "How is something with no callers in my Dependencies list?", you may ask. Well, unfortunately, if there is a library in your Dependencies, then any VI in that library that you don't call in your code will be listed in the "Find Items with No Callers" results. I've been meaning to add an option to that dialog to ignore Dependencies for years, but I haven't gotten around to it.

Yes, I've done that but all that does is list the files but I don't believe I can remove them from that project via that window.

And thanks to everyone for their suggestions so far.

I have a project file that has a rather large number of now orphaned items in it and I'm wondering if anyone can come up with a great idea for a VI to course through the project and removing those items. I really don't want to have to slog my way through doing it manually.

Ha, the "classic" mistake. Goedel's incompleteness proof shows exactly that it is impossible to separate the syntax from semantics, even for something as simple as adding natural numbers.

Br, Mike

Ha, the "classic" mistake. Goedel's incompleteness proof shows exactly that it is impossible to separate the syntax from semantics, even for something as simple as adding natural numbers.

Br, Mike

Mine is/was a classic mistake -- I hit Post when I "only" meant to paste. But I do wonder if you've read "Laws of Form". It does resolve the Godel's incompleteness assertion.

And, actually spoken languages doesn't have punctuation as does written language and that's has been part of the real challenge of live, duplex language translators and "speakers" being implemented in computers. The artifice is quite good and getting better by leaps and bounds, but until "pregnant pauses" and such can be implemented for receptive and passive speech, the distinction will remain.

(I imagine it's possible to harden the original statement against these kinds of attacks, but "This abstract concept I have in mind that represents an asserted truth value in a system of mutually exclusive truth values is in fact the opposite of the asserted truth value" doesn't roll off the tongue as easily.)

Except that all such syntaxes -- and semantics -- rely on a temporality "within them" that resolves the paradox a la G. Spencer Brown's "Laws of Form" (one of my favorite books). That's the easiest way to notice the resolution of seemingly paradoxical statements (that aren't) as well as Godel's statement. Notice the statement (or process) reenter itself and, as it does so, it can appear to oscillate in its value.

And, yes, it sounds like I also had a different experience of mathematics back in High School than what many did -- Calculus in grade 9 to start with.

Would that mean there's some other type of license that only NI has?

Yep.

I think it's safe to say "Yep" also means "Explore and/or use at your own risk" regardless of what you might find via the search suggested above.

Hey guys - here's another "LabVIEW alternatives" post online that is just getting rolling:

http://www.tmworld.c...substitute_.php

Feel free to chime in - the main topic is LabVIEW vs VEE, which I'm sure you guys can offer some sound advice on.

Also - is anyone a member of the LinkedIn group that Martin mentions? I made a request to join, but never got approval. I'm sure there's a long conversation going on there as well. Let me know if I need to break the door down.

I just added a comment to that blog. We'll see what happens. How can I gain access to the Linkedin group? I think I missed the identifier for me in the prior posts.

Writing ActiveX Controls if there are other solutions is only for real masochists . Go the DLL path, that gives you a lot more control in the debugging process, avoids an entire level of obscure Windows 3.1 imposed limitations, and a few more levels of intermediate bullshit, and last but not least if done with a little planning in mind, you can port it to every single platform that LabVIEW and VLC support without to much effort.

Yes, that's definitely the way to go.

It can be tough enough to debug an ActiveX control that's already written ... I wonder how painful it is to debug writing one yourself?

Well...... it CAN be done.... ....but it can be very painful...

I've had the same kinds of flickering problems with this particular ActiveX. I remember I hooked to the Event Callbacks and deferred panel updates until a particular action was completed. It was not an overlay but rather a resizing problem that caused the ActiveX container to resize to the original video size and then back to the "fit to screen" in a fraction of a second. I couldn't get rid of the effect but this was a workaround that worked in my case. I don't know if such an approach could help in your case...

Yes this is a problem with how LV implemented the ActiveX container for WMP. I've filed SR and even CARs on this for YEARS and NI has simply ignored them.

I do know that it would be VERY EASY fix for them to implement, but there's nothing else to do but something like what you've implemented or very byzantine embedding of WMP in VB constructs.

no No NO! Having code span more than the available screen resolution isn't inherently bad, and anyone who tells you so is a fundamentalist¹ itchin' for a fight

The real problem with fundamentalist's is that they really take out all of the fun. They actually should be called ..."damentalists".....

OK well then. That makes sense.

Thanks for the toolkit but I can't hear any audio on any of the demos using Safari or FIrefox, both with Flash 10 installed. Any good ideas?

And, of course, I'm sitting here, writing this feeling VERY jealous.....but you all already knew that.

Have a great time and post about it.....

Congratulations!!! :beer_mug:

True... and I should probably set a better example for customers who are in Beta Club... but I get some special dispensation from time to time.

....as I said, new capability: wizards and dispensation to "announce" them, surreptitiously.

And for many people, that fastest route is LVOOP (especially if I'm taking the exam with LV 2012... hehehe).

hmmmmmmmmm sounds like a non-announcement announcement of an as yet unknown capability. To quote an old time radio show:

"Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows...."

We'll just have to wait to see what happens next.

I'm for the CR approach.

....There is a vi in vi.lib that will natively return the version of an executable, there is no need to bust out the .NET. Sorry, no LabVIEW on my phone so I can't comment where it is or what it's called...

The problem of course is it requires an exe, so you can't get the number until you've built.

I think you're thinking of vi.lib\platform\fileVersionInfo.llb\FileVersionInfo.vi

If so look at: https://decibel.ni.com/content/docs/DOC-3733

View New Content and that little dot are solely the way I browse LAVA.

same for me...

Una mas....

Nope. There are other languages -- I have worked with both Haskell and Lisp, but there are others -- that are reference-free on existing operating systems.

Right, some folks are either pretty young (who remembers FORTRAN and PL/1?) or not as well exposed to alternate platforms. Personally I'm glad to be out of assembly limbo as well as the next couple of rungs up towards the Paradisio...

Even Ken didn't keep the original Unix releases as pure as some thought. There are some realities in terms of time and resources that ultimately constrain real-world development. Seems like some academics never quite get that -- but I do definitely respect their idealism and commitment.

Chris, you looked a bit confused the first couple of hours when I taught you the course 10 years ago.

Now it's of course Symbio's GOOP course, and we're about to release a new version of GOOP Development Suite any day now.

Anti-Flow

Is Reference Objects, Anti-flow?

I guess it is, but it's also how you use it, this picture below is a reference singleton class that I call in a data flow sequence.

Should you try to avoid Anti-flow?

Good luck and try.

All very simple applications could be done in pure Data-Flow, but as soon as you use any advanced features such as: File-IO, DaqMX, Vision, Queues, Semaphores, DVRs, Instrument References you are using references.

In my opinion, if you are an advanced user and ready for classes in LabVIEW, you already know the difference between Data-Flow and By Reference, and you know when to use the different techniques.

Cheers,

Mike

Mike,

I think your doing a pretty pure virtual call here using setmp()....

The issue isn't about whether or not to use references. It's about whether OO implementations are natively byref or byval.

One COULD say that all of the text that everyone sees using a traditional C++ really are references to constructs in assembly, based on compiler called in the build process. Similarly one COULD also say that all of the graphics that are seen when using LV are also references to, ultimately, the same underlying constructs in assembly. But none of that is really the point is it?

OK, just checking....

And I know that paradigm-shifting look of "My God. It's full of stars..." that shows up on students' faces when they really do see something in a completely new way.