Aristos Queue

There are only 2 problems in using this with modern GPower Error, easily fixed and still compatible with LV2013. 1) Replace all calls to the GPower Clear Error VI with LabVIEW's built-in Clear Error.vi, which did exist in LV2013. 2) Replace C:\Program Files (x86)\National Instruments\LabVIEW 2019\project\LAVA\LabVIEW Task Manager.vi with the attached VI (saved in LV2013) where I fixed the only use of Filter Error. LabVIEW Task Manager.vi

Never mind my previous post. I missed seeing this post at first. Known issue.

It’s a project window, not an arbitrary information pane window. And while we could make it an arbitrary info window, there are usability issues with that. VS doesn’t create a single window/pane with various modes. It has many panes that can be rearranged as different dockers or windows. As a project window, it should provide different views on the whole project, not one aspect of the project. It is software — we *can* do anything. But various UX reviews suggest this particular approach would be a less-than-ideal solution. Is the downside worth the gain? Our answer up to now has been, “N

What you’re asking for is the dockable panels that NXG had. NXG was able to use more of that VS pattern. But LabVIEW doesn’t have the same setup. A class tree isn’t another view of the project tree — where do you put all the VIs and libraries that aren’t part of a class?

I did not know. That possibility was not even on my radar. Even though the drumbeat of bad news had been going for a while, most corporations refuse to change direction on a bad decision. NI showed more sentience than I usually expect from massed humans: the sunk cost fallacy is a trap that is very hard to get out of. I figured the very good engineers on NXG would either surge through it and make it fly or we would bankrupt the company trying. That's the pattern established by plenty of other companies. Mixed. I spent 4.5 years directly working on NXG (2011 to 2016) and countless hours

Data color implies data type in G. Speaking only for myself as a G programmer, that's not an invariant I would want a developer on my team to be able to mess with. It would be a disaster of incomprehensibility if an orange wire running around was secretly an integer. Even just shades of blue would be a problem. I would put a hard stop against such a feature in my team's style guide if LV R&D ever decided to add it... and I have a hard time imagining LV R&D adding it.

Bobillier: It isn't really meaningful to color a particular instance of an object -- from wire to wire, it isn't necessarily the same object. It's the same as asking to have different color wires for two integers in the diagram or two strings. If the two things really represent different concepts in your system, you might create two different classes, both inheriting from the same parent class. Classes are distinguished on identity, state, and behavior, and there are good arguments for making two things be different data types even when they both have identical APIs. LabVIEW has neve

It would be fine to do... I just didn't bother writing the conversion. The performance differences between a set and linear searching an array are essentially impossible to measure until about 1000 elements on a modern CPU.

@JKSH Thank you very much. Attached, folks, is a revised copy of the .lvllib and its subVIs that will set icons for camel case VI names. Just unzip it to replace the files currently in your 2020 install -- make a backup copy first in case I've done something egregious. Text-Based VI Icon.lvlib.zip Included in the directory is one VI that is *not* part of the library: "Configure Named Icons.vi" If you open it, you can fill in a list of words to abbreviate and list of words to ignore. If you run the VI, these lists will be saved to your LabVIEW config file. The regular

@Darren Command line requires lots of quote marks if there are spaces involved. Not everyone uses a UI.

And if we had something like "Split English CamelCase.vi", someone could also fix the spell checker in VI Analyzer. Just sayin'. 🙂

UPDATE: Solution posted below. In LV2020, if you right-click on VI's panel icon, there's a new menu item: "Set Icon to VI Name". It splits the name at spaces into words and creates a nice text icon. Great! But some places have coding conventions that require no spaces in the name -- it's easier to use git with such files. And in that case, the current code sees the VI name as all one string. I would very much appreciate it if someone with spare time wants to rewrite this VI to handle CamelCase names: vi.lib\LabVIEW Icon API\Set Text Icon\Adjust Text to Fit Rectangle.vi Th

“There was this fence where we pressed our faces and felt the wind turn warm and held to the fence and forgot who we were or where we came from but dreamed of who we might be and where we might go...” -- Opening lines of “R is for Rocket” by Ray Bradbury I spent 20 years building this G language of ours. It’s time for me to go enjoy the fruits of that labor as a user! I will still be employed by NI, but I will be working full time for Blue Origin. As part of the NI “Engineer in Residence” program, I will be on loan to Blue Origin to revise their engine and support test systems. They

I have made public a document detailing an old internal feature of LabVIEW that will be of great interest to those of you deploying Packed Project Libraries. Until recent conversations with a customer, I never considered that this would have much utility. The problem this solves: First, you build a packed project library (PPL) from source. Then, you write a VI that calls that PPL. It works fine. But now you load the caller VI under a different target in your project. The caller VI breaks because it tries to load the PPL, and the PPL refuses because it isn't built for the new target. Packe

A software team can produce the next version of the software with the same staffing as the previous version. There’s no requirement to keep ramping investment other than pay raises. But if the employment environment is sufficiently non-competitive, not giving raises doesn’t lose devs. I presume hardware has similar economics, but I’ve never dug into that. In short, flat R&D can still provide continuous growth in revenue, as seen during 2001 and 2008 downturns at NI.