Jump to content

Aristos Queue

Members
  • Content Count

    3,119
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    170

Posts posted by Aristos Queue

  1. 13 hours ago, Reds said:

    I'm not really sure how revenue is going to grow with flat spending on engineering and sales. I guess they're just planning on doing everything a lot better? Unclear to me....

    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. 

  2. I have a theory for what a good UI for GIT would look like, and it is a bit different from the existing ones. 

    I think there should be a picture of the current state of the world. You draw a picture of the state you want. Then the tool generates the command line commands that get you from A to B. This serves two purposes: rather than taking an action and then seeing if that did what you want, it puts the UI in charge of figuring out how to get you textually what you're specifying graphically. Second, it shows the user what the commands are that it is executing so that you figure out "oh, that's how that is done" so that when the UI inevitably hits its limits (for whatever reason, GIT seems to exceed the complexity of all UIs used to render it), then the user is already are familiar with the commandline interface. 

    I don't think I'll ever be motivated to write this UI, but I figured I'd toss out that bit of brainstorming in case anyone decides to chase that albatross.

  3. GIT is that awful, in my opinion. I've screwed up many things years. I try not to use it as much as possible.

    The reason that GIT has taken over the SCC world is not because of its ease of comprehension or elegance of interface. It is because it is the only tool that can manage the full complexity of massive software teams, parallel releases, compression of features, etc, and the folks who use it daily just deal with it and get used to it.

    • Like 1
  4. 8 hours ago, Reds said:

    I wish NIC was generally more communicative about their changed view of the world. 

    NI had a massive online event, the company updated the website, our execs have given interviews, and I-don’t-know-how-many employees are on social media. I’m not sure how much louder we can amplify this. All I did is repeat what has been said in other public forums. 🙂 If I happened to use words that got the point across, great. But the content ain’t new!

  5. 3 hours ago, The Q said:

    As everyone has already shown, it's too much like everything else out there. 

    It is uncommon enough to do the job -- truly unique is hard to do with the limits imposed on modern logos.

    Color: The folks who study this said that the blue was a color used all over the place in corporate logos; the green is much rarer. There's really only a handful of colors that are available for corporate logos: red and blue are the big dogs, then green/purple/orange. And black. Yellow doesn't have enough contrast -- as we constantly prove trying to put the LV logo on things, so it has to be boxed into stuff. Yes, you pick a shade of those colors, but your logo will be bucketed anyway -- Hulu, TechCrunch, and NI have very different greens, but it's all just "green" when evaluating uniqueness. What that means is, yeah, you can argue about particular shades, but it's hard to actually be unique, so it is all about finding a not-as-common color for your industry. Green works for NI.

    Symbol: The logo has to be renderable recognizably down to absurdly small sizes, which limits how many places you can put the logo before you end up with a smudge -- which happened to the blue eagle a lot. Something that is easily represented by vectors scales a lot better. The eagle was a distinctly USA symbol in some places -- sometimes a pro, sometimes a con. Or it was recognized as something else. The new logo isn't a representation of anything, so it doesn't accidentally pick up cultural baggage. 

    Is it wild and unique? No. Generally, modern multinational logos cannot afford to be splashy like the old LabVIEW logo was -- too many colors limits where you can use it, and too many graphics limits its scale. But it'll be recognizable. That's the goal more than anything. And it represents a break from the past, and there was a fair amount in that presentation that was different than the Dr. T era. Most of it good, some of it aspirational. We'll see how it goes. 

    • Like 2
  6. 7 hours ago, X___ said:

    Then I am completely convinced that I have nothing to add to that discussion (which I guess was the purpose of this enlightening statement).


    I answered the question you were really asking, which was, “Did you idiots even think before implementing this junk?” If you had wanted an actual explanation of the feature, I’ve seen your posts often enough to know you would have asked directly. You didn’t ask that, so I didn’t answer that.  Your response to JeffP strongly suggests that I was right.

    X__, it is honestly hard to tell in many of your posts whether you want an answer or just want to pick a fight. My goal is to answer customer questions about LabVIEW and its design and to learn enough to fix designs that aren’t working.  Please, if you want a more useful answer, ask a question that isn’t snark and doesn’t require Latin translation. It would make helping you a lot easier — and I mean that *even if* your question is about R&D’s general lack of forethought. 

  7. 35 minutes ago, Raf73 said:

    Hope one day NI will release a slightly more decent control customize editor. The current one is still a real pain..

    NI already did: it is called LabVIEW NXG. NI created NXG specifically to address weaknesses in LabVIEW 20xx UI layer. The LabVIEW 20xx editor is antiquated, but its C++ code is very hard to modify. Given that NI's focus for user interfaces is almost entirely in NXG, there is very slim chance of further developments ever in the LabVIEW 20xx control editor. I cannot say "no, never" just as I never promise "yes" on future functionality even when I'm actively working on it, but I will say that it would take significant user encouragement for NI to fund the 20xx control editor ahead of other 20xx priorities, and I don't expect that to happen.

  8. On 6/4/2019 at 8:10 PM, Dataflow_G said:

    You may be seeing the sorting overhead of maps (and sets). AFAIK variant attributes are unsorted,

    Nope. Variant attributes and maps use the same — identical — underlying data structure. For reasons I don’t grasp, the C++ compiler adds a couple extra instructions in the maps case only when the keys are strings that aren’t in the variant attributes. Still, the conversion time to/from variant for the value tends to dominate for any real application. 

  9. On 5/2/2020 at 9:05 AM, pawhan11 said:

     If they deliver more fundamental things that are pain in CG like problems with relative build paths, unicode, sealed classes, packed libraries linkage, building of multiple layers of libraries without killing labview, out of the box support for source control systems & diff/merge operations... 

    Of your six items, NXG addresses three of them and has improved support for a fourth. The source code control stuff is still in flight -- not sure when the target is for delivery [again, not my department]. Sealed classes is so far down the priority list, it's not even in the backlog I bet. I couldn't get traction for that in LV20xx. 

  10. On 5/2/2020 at 2:47 PM, Neil Pate said:

    Why is a feature like this removed? Sure, it is not a great thing to use this to actually run my application, but why removed it? Hide it away somewhere if you are worried it is going to be abused.

    It wasn't removed from NXG. It has not yet been added. There are a sizable number of customers who lobby LV 20xx to remove it entirely, and others who want it left just as prominent as it is today. You can see one place where that discussion has been playing out: https://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW-Idea-Exchange/Hide-Run-Continuously-by-default/idi-p/1521886

    NXG hasn't decided how to handle it yet, so they haven't added it. It's in the ToDo backlog to add it somewhere.

  11. 21 hours ago, Neil Pate said:

    Also, as a leftie my right hand hovers on the arrow keys when programming, so nowhere near the left hand side of the keyboard.

    Darren has acknowledged he is not the right person to develop a left-hand set of shortcuts. If you put together a list of shortcuts for yourself that work better for left hand, contact him... he's happy to promote them. You can swap out the QD shortcuts if you have a better set. 

  12. 17 hours ago, Michael Aivaliotis said:

    It would be great to have a project menu item, goto parent interface:

    16 hours ago, Mike Le said:

    How would this work if a class has multiple interfaces? Maybe instead of a right-click menu option, some kind of visualizer that only shows the class's interfaces?

     

    Wouldn’t be “Go To...” it would be in the project item’s Find menu with Find>>Callers. Like all of those, Find>>Parent Interfaces would jump directly if there was only one and pull up a results list if multiple. 
     

    We had it on the proposed task list and cut it out of this release. It goes in the iteration bin to compete with other priorities. 

  13. 16 hours ago, Michael Aivaliotis said:

    Why can't we get this class relationship view inside the project tree? It seems useful.

    The project tree is an all-files view. Not every file is a member of a class. There are VIs in libraries, loose VIs, non-LabVIEW files (like readme.txt). We talked about a class view in project back at start of LVOOP project and repeatedly since then, and we repeatedly decided the project window was the wrong place for that. That is the reason the LabVIEW Class Hierarchy window exists. 
     

    For a better view overall, checkout OpenGDS or NI-GDS toolkits (although neither is updated for interfaces at this time).

  14. On 4/30/2020 at 8:06 AM, Jordan Kuehn said:

    I'm shocked that one isn't already available.

    Note above where I quoted another NI engineer about the complexity of answering that question given the variations of Pis available. We (NI) does not own one of every possible Pi. We are able to give the tech specs of what is supported, but the model numbers are not so straightforward in their mapping. Therefore, the table will have to be crowd sourced over time.

    If you're shocked that the community has not built it yet, well, LV2020 CE only dropped on Tuesday. 🙂

  15. 3 hours ago, Mads said:

    "For every existing customer you lose, you have to recruit 3 new ones just to make up for the loss". 

    Most of the existing customers surveyed like NXG. They just don't like how limited it is at this time. I, for example, really want to be able to use NXG. It has so many nice things. It just ain't ready for me yet. But it will be. And in the meantime, LV 20xx continues to be a thing. Used interfaces yet? 🙂

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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