Maxwell_Peng Posted June 25, 2014 Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 LabVIEW's main characters is graphic and data flow program. Everything in LabVIEW seems to be a "value". In Java, we can use "new" operation to allocate memory for a object, so we can share this object buy multi objects. But in LabVIEW, I think it will allocate and release memory for any data type automatically. So I think some design patterns may not be implemented by LabVIEW and LabVIEW is not really suit for OOP. Quote Link to comment
shoneill Posted June 25, 2014 Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 Are you just sharing your thoughts or are you looking for input from someone? LabVIEW can also dynamically allocate memory, indeed dynamically instantiate objects and their lifetime is defined and limited. I don't see the problem with this and OOP. Being a by-value paradigm does not in any way prevent LabVIEW from being an able OOP language. Certainly certain OOP implementations may be more or less suited to LabVIEW but nothing at all about OOP REQUIRES something to be by-value. It just happens to have grown that way. It is possible to have a by-ref object in LabVIEW. Again I don't see the problem with this and OOP. So my 2c is that LV can do OOP just like other languages but (and this is kind of obvious) the specific implementation details will vary from some other languages. Quote Link to comment
AlexA Posted June 25, 2014 Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 Doesn't OOP really boil down to trying to encapsulate related functionality into effectively atomic objects, from the point of view of external components? In other words, code only expresses well defined interfaces to the external world? Everything else about how exactly that's implemented seems to me to be cruft. Quote Link to comment
drjdpowell Posted June 25, 2014 Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 so we can share this object by multi objects. I wouldn’t think this is central to OOP. And I would tend to say there is good reason to NOT share things in this way, keeping objects with a single “owner” and doing “Sharing” via asynchronous messages. If you do want to share, use a DVR. 1 Quote Link to comment
ak_nz Posted June 26, 2014 Report Share Posted June 26, 2014 I wouldn’t think this is central to OOP. And I would tend to say there is good reason to NOT share things in this way, keeping objects with a single “owner” and doing “Sharing” via asynchronous messages. If you do want to share, use a DVR. Or the newly re-branded Goop Development Suite Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.