Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


About styrum

  • Rank
    More Active

LabVIEW Information

  • Version
    LabVIEW 2016
  • Since

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Much longer "nail to the coffin" 😜 of THAT KIND of OOP (written 5 years earlier than the subject rant/"opinion"). Or an entire box of nails rather. And even interfaces introduced in 2020 don't help LVOOP considering all those "nails". Even if you don't read the whole thing, notice the same conclusions (recommendations of alternatives) in the end regarding the paradigms and languages to use instead: actor model (Erlang) and/or functional programming (Haskel, Closure). Again, it was written in 2014. Also notice that some comments above are too similar to "No True Scotsman..."😜 h
  2. Exactly! To implement an actor in LabVIEW one doesn't need LVOOP! Quite a few "asynchronously communicating modules" producer-consumer design patterns, developed by different people independently from each other including my LabHSM and EDQSM show that very clearly. After all, LVOOP didn't even exist when mine were developed. One can get away with just a cluster in a shift register to access any the data from any action case, but, OK, lets instead make an instance of a "regular" (LVOOP) class and make each action case just call a corresponding method of that class. It will look a little cleaner
  3. Quite a lively πŸ˜€ discussion on Slashdot: https://developers.slashdot.org/story/19/07/22/0426201/is-object-oriented-programming-a-trillion-dollar-disaster
  4. I think it is important what exactly we call "OO code". If objects are not simply "dead" combinations of data and methods, but rather have their own "life"/"process", exchange messages with the user, "environment", and other objects the way actors do, react to events, I am all for such "OO code". The "regular/"passive"/"C++/Java/C# style" objects indeed have a very limited use and I agree that the attempts to build large applications using only them by constructing and utilizing complicated inheritance hierarchies and design patterns can lead to a disaster.
  5. πŸ˜‚He knew what was coming: " I expect some sort of reaction from the defenders of OOP. They will say that this article is full of inaccuracies. Some might even start calling names. They might even call me a β€œjunior” developer with no real-world OOP experience. Some might say that my assumptions are erroneous, and examples are useless. Whatever. " I think we all still can benefit from a more substantive discussion of his particular points rather than from accusations of "not understanding", let alone "calling names" and insults. A "straw man" demagogic trick is no good either. Th
  6. Some food for thought: https://medium.com/better-programming/object-oriented-programming-the-trillion-dollar-disaster-92a4b666c7c7 Note that LVOOP is indeed the "C++, Java and C# variety of OOP" too, and is taught the same way, complete with "cats and dogs", all the same "Gang of Four" design patterns, S.O.L.I.D (https://scotch.io/bar-talk/s-o-l-i-d-the-first-five-principles-of-object-oriented-design), etc. " The bitter truth is that OOP fails at the only task it was intended to address. It looks good on paper β€” we have clean hierarchies of animals, dogs, humans, etc. However, i
  7. The NI definitions of tag, stream and message/command are given, for example, in this cRIO guide (p. 29): http://www.ni.com/pdf/products/us/fullcriodevguide.pdf
  8. It is indeed amazing and sad how attractive and popular "straw man argument" is. I won't even say anything else.
  9. The matching discussion on NI forums: https://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW/Eleven-Ways-to-Update-an-Indicator-from-within-a-subVI-Their/td-p/3938618
  10. Yes, checking the watchdog queue takes a lot of time (if not most of) in each sender iteration. Please check out a "sequential version" in the latest posts or try putting a Disable structure around those Preview Queue Element nodes in the sender VIs (you will have to stop everything with the stop button on the toolbar of the Main then).
  11. styrum Member β€Ž06-18-2019 04:17 PM Set Control By Index added. Wow, it is fast! "Speed" calculation in the "sequential" version corrected to count the iterations of the receiver loops. Fastest update of indicator from subVI (5).zip
  12. Ok, OK, my bad, I left Debugging enabled. This is not a commercial app. This is is just some "food for thought", and something to play with, which you would otherwise not have the time to put together yourself. But now you can find some time (much less) to play with it. The goal was to get people to play with it, find flaws, "unfairness", etc. So I am glad that happened so quickly. Here is a version that has debugging disabled plus a "sequential" flavor of the whole thing. Some disclaimers right away: 1. Yes, I deliberately do not count the iterations completed by sender loops but no
  13. Well, the very point of putting together this code is for people to see the numbers for themselves and that I didn't "cheat" on any of the tested methods to make some look better than others. Their significantly different performance numbers are real. In summary, the main findings are: 1. (Widely known) Passing a control reference to a subVI or a VI running in parallel to the VI where the control(indicator) is located with the purpose of using that reference to update that control/indicator is the worst you can do. 2. (Not so well known) Using "user events" in event structures f
  14. Yes, I know, you wanted to do this some day too. So I did it for you. Just run (and then stop) the Main VI from the attached set (Saved in LabVIEW 2016 32-bit). I suspect (and hope) the numbers will be quite a surprise and even a shock, especially for the fans of one particular method and some very aggressively promoted frameworks which use that method. Fastest update of indicator from subVI.zip
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.