"I hate LabView" topic

[i2dx]

7.1 is my sentimental favorite. She was solid.

yea, 7.1.1 was great. OK there was no project explorer (and I could not imagine working on big distributed systems without it!), working with an FPGA was somewhat "tricky" and if you wanted to work on an RT-Target and a Windows-Target at the same time, you had to use some really dirty tricks, so many of the features in the current versions are really improving my day to day work! But on the other hand: almost all features in LV 7.1.1 I used in my daily work were working properly and that's what I'd like to see again. And if that would mean that there are less features or no new features at all in the next versions - that's absolutely ok for me - I'd keep on paying my SSP anyway if I would get a better, faster and improved Development Environment, whith less bugs and more productivity.

There are some examples what I don’t like to see: since LV 5 we all knew that at a copy and paste operation would place the pasted code in the BD centered at the last position of the mouse pointer. In LV 8.6.x somebody in the R&D thought it would be funny to insert that code floating in the middle of the screen. This has been already changed to the old behaviour again, but why the heck did anyone even think about changing a workflow, that was established for years without any reason? Did anyone complain about this established behaviour and if yes, why did NI not laugh at him and call him names?

Second example: in LV 8.6.1 there “suddenly” was a bug in the property-dialog for numeric controls. There was a hotfix a few days later, but why the heck did someone mess up this dialog, which was unchanged since LV 8.2? Got some Perforce issues, eh?

3^rd example: in LV 8.6.1 the dialog for editing enums starts jumping to the first line if there are more elements in the enum, than the MCL-Box can handle without scrolling. I’d really like to meet that pupil that messed up that tool and do a little “debug session” with him

Maybe some of you may now think: why does this little stupid not install a newer version of LV? That’s quite simple: I use newer versions of LV in other projects, but I also have one project, where I have to stick to LV 8.6.1 (due to several reasons). That means: at least 3 month a year I have to work with LV 8.6.1 and every day I see those totally unnecessary bugs and get annoyed by them and the worst thing is: I know exactly there is absolutely nothing I could do about that because “my” bugs are fixed in a version I can not use for that specific project and that’s a real frustrating perspective.

Most of my customers don't care if I know OOP or if I know how to make an Xcontrol.

That's the point for me, too. My customers are satisfied, if the software they get from me is in time, in budget and is stable and fits their demands. The decision how to create that software is up to me. If there is an advantage for me in using e.g. OOP or X-Controls, because, that makes me faster, more flexible or let me produce less bugs, than that feature is – of course!! - a good choice for me. If there is no advantage for me, I leave it. Nobody pays me for creating code with cool new features, I get paid for reliability and speed

cheers,

CB

Edited February 11, 2011 by i2dx

[Aristos Queue]

Inability to write descriptive comments!

I'd like to answer: why don't you stupid use the VI Documentation? and why don't you use the text-tool in the BD?

Or just paste an entire picture into your source code, like the flow chart, or hardware configuration...

This yearly major version updates really suck! If someone would ask me I’d say: a major release once in 5 years would be enough, like Microsoft does with Visual Studio.

Define "major release"... VS put out versions 2003, 2005, 2008, and 2010. Are these major upgrades? They completely keel hauled the user interface between each one. They've got a two year cycle, most of the time. And the entire .NET language is revving once per year, a very fast cycle time.

LabVIEW specifically and NI generally tries to strike a balance between putting out new features (which is the only thing users are really willing to shell out money for) and patching existing features, and between backward compatibility and forward innovation. I think we're doing a good job when I compare us against the other tools that I have to use. Yes, the speed is blazing and it is hard to keep up, but I think LV's front panel is a perfect example of what happens if we don't rev every single year. We took our eye off of that particular ball for a while, focusing on improving the compiler, making new toolkits, expanding diagram syntax, and in just a couple years, instead of ooching along with small differences annually, the panel looks really dated, and everyone comments on it. My theory is that LabVIEW as a whole would suffer that same rapid slippage if we didn't try to rev continuously, and the cost to catch back up -- as we're seeing with the panel -- is substantial.

[xtal]

Define "major release"... VS put out versions 2003, 2005, 2008, and 2010. Are these major upgrades?

When you work in a regulated environment, updating SW from 8.6 to 8.6.1 is considered a pretty major change requiring all sorts of revalidation. I'm fine with LV updating often and fixing things on a yearly cycle, but don't expect me to jump on board for each new rev the second it releases. Most of my projects are still in 8.2.1 and 8.6.1. Yes, I'm falling way behind on the "new features" curve, but it sure beats having to revalidate dozens of machines.

[John Lokanis]

the cost to catch back up -- as we're seeing with the panel -- is substantial.

I hope this is a hint that FP improvements are coming soon. I know 2011 is a 'stability' release, but I really look forward to new UI components and a more powerful and easier set of tools to customize the FP. I know we can do anything we want if we write enough code but I don't want to have to write all the code to do some UI trickery.

Oh, and I have not had any major issues with 2010. Actually, the Web Service improvements have been a big help vs all the problems I had in 2009.

-John

[Tim_S]

When you work in a regulated environment, updating SW from 8.6 to 8.6.1 is considered a pretty major change requiring all sorts of revalidation.

Even when you don't work in a regulated environment it can be a major thing. The equipment we sell warranties for 1-2 and operates for, typically, 5 years before being retooled. Keeping all the versions (and drivers!) we've used handy just in case some customer's equipment is down can eat a lot of space.

Tim

[egraham]

I'm not a hater, but saw this sticker over at the Evil Mad Science storefront and thought it was pretty funny. If anyone hated LV enough it definitely wouldn't be worth spending the time to make a post about - instead they would just stop using it. Some of us are always looking for something to complain about when we don't have enough other things to keep us busy.

http://evilmadscience.com/directory

[Val Brown]

I'm not a hater, but saw this sticker over at the Evil Mad Science storefront and thought it was pretty funny. If anyone hated LV enough it definitely wouldn't be worth spending the time to make a post about - instead they would just stop using it. Some of us are always looking for something to complain about when we don't have enough other things to keep us busy.

http://evilmadscience.com/directory

It's also one of those "...and they didn't do it MY way..." kind of things.

[Cat]

LabVIEW specifically and NI generally tries to strike a balance between putting out new features (which is the only thing users are really willing to shell out money for)

It's not quite *that* bad. I've had a SSP for... well, probably as long as NI has offered them, and I am always years behind on upgrading. Why the SSP?? Because, especially in the early days when there were relatively few users, and actual LV competitors, I wanted to encourage NI to keep supporting LV.

I personally need as absolutely stable of a development environment as possible. I am often writing code in a place where I can't get online for help if LV starts crashing for no apparent reason. I loved 7.1.1 and didn't upgrade to 8.6.1 until after 2009 came out. I am being pushed by users to start running in a 64-bit environment so I'm starting to run LV2010 experimentally, way ahead of my usual upgrade cycle. I am somewhat dismayed by the amount of time I see "LabVIEW not responding" on the screen... So I am anxiously awaiting the upcoming "stability release". Not new features, but a reliable development environment is what gets me excited.

(Tho I will have to admit I love that in 2010 code pastes to where I put it, and the cluster icon is great!)

[ShaunR]

I'm pretty much in-line with Cat here.

I think "new" business is driven by latest features, gadgets and spin. But thats due to competition from other products. But I would tentatively wager that the vast majority of LabVIEW income is from SSP which, as it's name suggests is for value added Service and Support - a recurring income stream with almost no additional overheads or cost. I think most "real-world" Labview programmers (if they have any sense). Only upgrade to a later version if there is new feature that achieves common requirements that were impossible or at least very difficult in the older versions (very rare-but I would put the events structure in this category). Or a customer requires it. Version changes are a very high risk proposition and I think most opt for "better the devil you know". But that doesn't stop us paying our SSP for the exemplary service NI provides and to be able to pick up the phone and talk to real engineers who have real product knowledge. I, for one, pay my SSP for this. Not to get the new versions.

If I were to rate the importance (to me) of new features and reliability on a scale of 1-10. New features would be 2-3 and reliability would be 8-10. New features don't cost me time, money or reputation. Unreliable software does. Nor do I see them as mutually exclusive. Get the software reliable then add features. Adding new features to unreliable software only makes unreliable new features.

In times gone by, I used to be more cavalier about upgrades because a new version would come out, with very few known issues of any consequence and if something was found, a patch or new version would be very quick to follow-certainly within a project time-frame. Now, however, the cycle is very slow and I've yet to see a SP2 fixing my 2009 version before 2010 was released (which probably hasn't fixed bugs I'm concerned with but as sure as eggs are eggs will introduce new ones).

[iEmilie]

Just want to chime in here – I’m NI’s social business manager and a stakeholder in LabVIEW’s brand reputation on the social web. It’s my job to tune into online conversations that mention LabVIEW and help advise on why/how NI may need to take any direct action.

The infamous LabVIEW hate blog post you guys found provides a fascinating case study for how one simple complaint on an obscure blog about nothing can turn into a brand reputation crisis. You’ve noticed that Todd Sierer chimed in on the blog several years ago. Little did we know the blog comments would continue to snowball into something that now has 131 comments and counting. Today, this blog post appears in top organic search results for “LabVIEW+alternatives” and “LabVIEW+hate."

More recently, I recruited our VP from LabVIEW R&D to chime in. His post is worth the read – I personally know he spent quite some time putting it together. His words provide the most current glimpse into the state of LabVIEW and where David personally would like to see it headed. Take a look. http://jshoer.wordpress.com/2007/08/03/why-i-hate-despise-detest-and-loathe-labview/#comment-3610

The negative comments on the blog are extremely deflating to any LabVIEW brand advocate like myself. I’d agree that most of them are rabid, yet insubstantial complaints because of frustrations stemming from the fact that they simply don’t understand how to effectively use LabVIEW (and I’m not insinuating that it’s completely their faults…NI needs to do a lot more to set the right expectations with new users and help build proficiency).

But I’m also a realist and like it or not, we’ve entered the age of the social web, where anyone can say anything and get heard. For NI, it’s a huge opportunity and huge liability all at the same time.

What gives me hope:

This LAVA thread is listed as the #1 organic search result in Google for “LabVIEW hate” and I’d much rather someone find this thread than the blog post. You guys have taken time to provide thoughtful, constructive feedback about LabVIEW that would actually be helpful for someone considering the tool. Not all of it’s good and that’s ok. That’s what people need to hear. And that’s what NI need’s to hear too. Rest assured: it’s your feedback that we’ll actually take action on.

But I just wanted to thank you all for caring enough about LabVIEW to examine and explain how we can continue to make it better, in a meaningful way. This LAVA thread helps me sleep better at night. So thanks for the extra winks of sleep.

[Phillip Brooks]

As Rick Santorum can attest, a #1 Google search can certainly affect your image.

I would point out that there have been some lively discussions on NI's own forums. This one is a classic.

http://forums.ni.com...ons/m-p/1908003

There are a few NI employee posts in there, but much of the discussion is between users. In the end there was still disagreement, but kudos to NI for not purging it as Apple and AT&T sometimes does because the discussion "besmirches the brand".

The response to David's post in the Wordpress link you provided pretty much ends the conversation. Richard's response was:

I have mostly ‘passionate vitrol’ because this is such a HOT topic in my mind that I cannot think clearly whenever exposed to LabView. I will not go into specifics because you will just dazzle me with more NI bullshit. All I have is sour grapes because I cannot give you the grimy details of the situation.

LabView still sucks.

He states that he cannot think clearly, that passion takes the place of logic and that his personal situation somehow makes NI's products bad.

We just have to accept that sometimes "haters gonna hate"

[asbo]

That was how I felt about Richard's retort. I read his list of unforgivable flaws and every single of one of them has a solution I would have easily handled six months after starting LV. I didn't read the rest of the page, but I get the impression he comes from a distinctly non-G background and simply has no desire to change his mind.

[Aristos Queue]

iEmilie: I haven't really been worried about the "hate LV" blog post. I kind of enjoy reading it. In my eyes, LabVIEW seems to come out pretty well in that thread. I figure there's always going to be someone angry at us, so the existence of the thread itself doesn't bother me. What I like is that in all of the pro-LV comments, whether from NI or not, people reply with calmness, reasonableness and helpful advice. I've read that thread a few times over the years and thought perhaps we should start an advertising campaign: "LabVIEW: Using it will make you a nicer person." :-)

Various folks have said that reading that post was deflating. It shouldn't be. My list of "things I hate about LabVIEW" would be waaaaay more than just 10 things, and I guarantee some of them are far blacker marks against us than anything jshoer mentions. I cannot believe how incredibly stupid we have been over the years on some features (yes, I include features I created and now regret), and how long it is taking us to get certain upgrades. But I don't view these deficiencies as reasons to be depressed. LabVIEW is a growing language, adapting over 25 years to the changing technologies and customer bases. Doing what no one has ever done before sometimes means you get a less than optimal solution and you have to fix it up in round 2. Do we have more we can do? Yes. And we continue to work to improve. But the backbone of LabVIEW remains strong. Graphics is the only manageable way to express parallelism, and parallelism is the name of the game in the future. Have you guys seen the parallel keywords that Microsoft has been introducing into the other languages lately? Everything needs to be parallel, but procedural programming is a dead end. There is only so far you can go with compiler analysis of procedural code and manual control of mutexes before you hit a wall and flat out say, "No, I need a system that is designed for multicore from the outset." Between our parallel expression on the desktop and our ability to target FPGAs, I'm thrilled about LV's future, and all the complaining is just the list of tasks we need to be tackling on our way there.

When I started at NI, on my first day, I saw a sign by Jeff K's desk: "You know you have built a successful product when people use it for things you never intended and criticize you for being short sighted." The "hate LV" post is just one of the sign posts of our success.

[CRoebuck]

A little rule I always apply in situations like this is to remember that "people always criticise things they don't fully underatand"

I've spent 14 years programming in labVIEW , it was my first language , it is my go-to language (ecuse the pun) and it makes me more productive. I'm happy

EDIT: Just read Dave's response, it makes me optimisic to know that guys like Dave and AQ are driving the direction of this product. Great reponse.

[iEmilie]

Hey guys - here's another "LabVIEW alternatives" post online that is just getting rolling:

http://www.tmworld.c...substitute_.php

Feel free to chime in - the main topic is LabVIEW vs VEE, which I'm sure you guys can offer some sound advice on.

Also - is anyone a member of the LinkedIn group that Martin mentions? I made a request to join, but never got approval. I'm sure there's a long conversation going on there as well. Let me know if I need to break the door down.

[Phillip Brooks]

is anyone a member of the LinkedIn group that Martin mentions?

I am. I'll check it as soon as I have some free time...

[Val Brown]

Hey guys - here's another "LabVIEW alternatives" post online that is just getting rolling:

http://www.tmworld.c...substitute_.php

Feel free to chime in - the main topic is LabVIEW vs VEE, which I'm sure you guys can offer some sound advice on.

Also - is anyone a member of the LinkedIn group that Martin mentions? I made a request to join, but never got approval. I'm sure there's a long conversation going on there as well. Let me know if I need to break the door down.

I just added a comment to that blog. We'll see what happens. How can I gain access to the Linkedin group? I think I missed the identifier for me in the prior posts.

[iEmilie]

Val - I loved your comment on the blog. Well said.

Here's the LinkedIn group where the discussion originated:

http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Test-Measurement-World-2196932/about?trk=anet_ug_grppro

It's classified as Private, so the group managers have to grant you membership before you can see anything. You'll need to request to join.

For anyone doing test applications, it's probably a good group to subscribe to.