Salut.
LabVIEW is still a "DATA" flow language, where the "DATA" is the center of the problem. I strongly believe in that philosophy and when i heard that they implemented LVOOP i was eager to see what they had done...(i thought that they may had implemented the GOOP way :headbang: ) From my point of view, objects are just containers and should not be the focus of the problem solving...I did not play yet with the LVOOP, but even if i beleive that i will find some rough edged, i know that i will overall like it!
I believe that to grasp the full potential of dataflow, one as to revize is way of solving problems and not try to force sequential or standard object methodology into it...
Is it possible that the main error with this implementation was to call it LVOOP?
Maybe it should have been called LVAOP (LabVIEW Actor Oriented Programming) like stated in one of the NI-Week sessions i don't remember what morning and by whom, but i liked what i heard there!!! :thumbup:
I will post back when i have went through the documents and a little hands-on with LVOOP...