hooovahh

No this just hides the problem (but I understand the urge). Bends must happen in LabVIEW, and the style guide must mentions unnecessary wire bends. This bend is necessary. I choose the error wire be straight first.

I... ...I'm not sure he would mind.

I said "dated in development style". Controls/indicators with white labels, not transparent, labels on top of the controls not to the side, classic controls including error, VIs not inlined that can be. The tools themselves are quite useful and in my opinion should have effort to update the API to have other functions as well.

As time goes on this "Windows API" becomes less useful and more dated in the development style, but I still find uses for it. http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/epd/p/id/4935 It has a subVI making a window front most given a HWND. Now getting the HWND of a VI is a simple property node away, no longer do you need to rely on the window title. http://lavag.org/topic/13803-getting-the-window-handle-for-a-fp-with-no-title-bar/

You obviously are in a better position to rate LabVIEW versions for stability over the years. Your intimate knowledge of low level development, and CARs is invaluable. And as years pass my memory of why I feel a way about a version becomes less clear. Also I never meant to go off topic, really I just wanted to say that I hope 2013 is the most rock solid version yet, but if it isn't my fall back would be 2011, simply because for me I've used it on more projects then 2012, which we only started using on real projects since SP1 about 6 months ago.

Yeah I didn't know how far back to go. I didn't use 5.x, and 6.x much but from what I remember it followed my semi-pattern. 5.0 - Stable 6.0 - Not Stable 6.1 - Stable Don't ask me to go back farther. You know my projects have alot of CAN/XNet stuff it could be the driver I guess.

I have a problem where basically all versions of LabVIEW will crash on exit occasionally. 2013 is no different. I suspect it is a system setup rather then a stability/instability of LabVIEW. Traditionally NI (intentional or not) skips a version when it comes to stability in my opinion. There are exceptions to the rule. This list is just my experience and you're welcome to disagree. 7.0 - Not Stable 7.1 - Stable 8.0 - Not Stable 8.2 - Stable 8.5 - Not Stable 8.6 - Not Stable 2009 - Stable 2010 - Not Stable 2011 - Stable 2012 - Stable 2013 - TBD Is there a rule about software releases where every other version is good? I feel like Windows follows this same rule.

It is? Well then there should be no reason to not put it on the palette right

Maybe that's it, maybe they used the High Resolution Relative Seconds to get a more accurate time? Most likely this is not the fix because I think the high resolution time is Windows only which is why it isn't on the palette yet (just speculation).

I've seen something similar with TDMS and Copy. I have a test running where we log to TDMS. Then we close the file at the end, then copy it and the index file to a duplicate location. Many times I would get an error 10 "Duplicate Path" "Asynchronous I/O Operation In Progress". So I would put the copy function in a for to retry a couple times and we no longer have this problem. I never determined the cause, and didn't have time to debug it because a solution was found.

I just tested the VI attached by AQ in the first post in LabVIEW 2013. I clicked Trigger about 20 times, and every time the user event was handled first, and the array showed 0, 1, 2. It does look like this is fixed. I do wonder however, what other event based bugs will be seen now that 2013 had this major overhaul. I don't believe there must be new bugs, but it looks like there was quite a few changes, and I'm sure a lot of testing went into it, but when upgrading legacy programs I wonder what unexpected results may occur.

So a couple things. If you have a professional version of VIPM on your laptop you can create a VIPC file that contains multiple packages. This will create a single file that can be double clicked on any computer without the internet and it will install all the packages just as if you got them from the internet. If you don't have the professional version of VIPM you can still copy the individual package files from your laptop and bring them over. Go to C:ProgramDataJKIVIPMcache to find all the packages that have been locally downloaded. This path is for Windows 7 and maybe slightly different for other OSs. You can then install these package files on your other PC by going to File >> Open Package File(s) and selecting all the files at once.

I can't help but get excited. Because everything this guy talks about resonates with what NI has been trying to do with LabVIEW. Also the fact that people rejected Fortran made me smile a little. Because the same type of people, will reject LabVIEW for similar reasons. Not that I can't be suborn at times. I still don't use the auto-tool.

I started calling myself LabVIEW Overlord as a joke, because people throw around the term Guru all the time. Only now it sound pretensions when someone introduces me as the LabVIEW Overlord. Also someone may take that as me pretending I'm better then a NI Knight, which wasn't the intent either. Lets not be rational here. We can all agree it is NI's fault and I demand they fix it. Can't they just have 6.4 pixels per terminal?

I agree. I have found myself developing a tools menu item, and then changing it to a quick drop item instead. When developing I find two shortcut combos is faster then navigating the tools menu. Especially on a system where the items and order of the things in the tools menu potentially changes after installing something from VIPM.

I'm no quick drop expert but this is how I'd do it. Say CTRL+Space then CTRL+C (maybe that is semi-reserved) this brings up a new dialog window that shows the options, and you pick the one you want which then adds the code to the block diagram. Closing this window does nothing, and calling another CTRL+C brings this window back to the front with new settings if it was never closed before. Not ideal no but I think it could be used this way.

I forgot about this. But usually to highlight this I will color the background a different color, or bold the font. I don't think either of these change the cell height.

I'm okay with this for the same reason. But I would rather be consistent. Look at the sample I posted with the TDMS functions. That gets me every time that I need to be one pixel off whenever that palette is used. I would rather they were consistent with 5-3-3-5 (or what ever they picked). But I would say that 4-2-2-4 is my standard and very rarely deviate from it. But just as the style guide is a guide, I would say that a 4-2-2-4 setup should not be strictly enforced and if I were king of LabVIEW I wouldn't ban anyone if they used another.

Yes there exists properties to modify the graph axis info. One demo (that I haven't found yet) was shown off at NI Week to allow a graph to be zoomed in using the scroll wheel. This was to show off the new mouse scroll event. Select the active scale property for either the X or the Y scale. This is a zero index value so if your graph only has one X and wire a 0 to it. Then you'll probably want to change the autoscale to be no auto scale. Under the X Scale Property set the Scale Fit to 0 which is no scale (the help describes the others). Then you can set the X Scale, Range, Minimum and Maximum. This will set the minimum and maximum that the X will be. You can do the same for the Y scale as well.

I wasn't at the challenge but I could tell there was some kind of discussion there about the implementation. It met the specified requirements did it now? I realize it may not be the intent but that is because of poor requirements. Now that I think about it I can agree with your front panel specifics, because you mentioned what is considered an object on the front panel from the perspective of LabVIEW.

Yeah when Christina mentioned the cell height of each cell needs to be the same, I thought when have I ever wanted the cell height to be different for a single row, and I guess there is a case for this but I have never needed it.

I'm going to argue for the sake of arguing if you don't mind. "To stop the VI you cannot press the abort button, or by clicking an object on the front panel" Are we now saying that the exit button is not an object, on the front panel? The title of the window is something like "Untitled 9 Front Panel" so to me that states that the entire window is called the Front Panel, and the Resize, Minimize, Maximum, and Exit buttons would be part of it. That being said it doesn't bother me that Darren won.

Maybe I made a superBoolean class that is a subset of the boolean class that I want to be more specific to. Or maybe I just grabbed the first two functions I knew would demonstrate my frustration and took a screenshot.

I don't use auto tool (lets not get this started) so I am very quickly pressing tab, on top of all the quick drop functions, compulsive CTRL+S, and constant CTRL+E or CTRL+W. As a result I have been called the Certified LabVIEW Finger F***er.

Instead of 12 Steps we have 12 States. We admitted we were powerless over LabVIEW OCD alignment—that our lives had become unmanageable Came to believe that through hard work and determination, ourselves could restore us to sanity. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the block diagram cleanup as we understand it. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves. Admitted to ourselves, LAVA, and to another human being the exact nature of our OCD. Were entirely ready be content with these wiring defects. Humbly asked developers to review their code and accept it when the review is complete. Made a list of all developers who did not adhere to the LabVIEW style guide, and became willing to make amends to them all. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others. Continued to take personal inventory, and when spending too much time adjusting wires, promptly admitted it. Sought through research and discussions to improve ourselves, for knowledge of other developers for us and the power to carry that out. Having had a acceptance and realization as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to other LabVIEW OCD wire addicts, and to practice these principles in all our affairs. You would be surprised how little this differs from the actual 12 steps.