JohnRH Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 Hello all! I've been absent from the LV scene for over a year now, and just got back into it with some contracting work. For this contract I am required to use the latest version of LabVIEW (currently 8.2). Based on my passed experience with LabVIEW, I've been very surprised - in some cases shocked - by all the bugs that are biting me on this project. What surprises me even more is that it seems that NI is not planning to fix these bugs until the next major release of LV! (which of course will probably not be a free upgrade) Am I alone in thinking that LV 8.2 is a little more 'buggy' than most? Perhaps it is simply that my project is more complicated than the others that I've worked on (thus a higher probablilty of encountering bugs). On the other hand, maybe other developers are getting as frusterated as myself with this version of LabVIEW? Does anyone with more experience than myself on larger projects have an opinion on this? I guess I am feeling a little burned, but wondering if I am really justified in feeling this way. Thanks for the feedback! John Quote Link to comment
Tomi Maila Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 QUOTE(JohnRH @ Mar 13 2007, 07:38 PM) I guess I am feeling a little burned, but wondering if I am really justified in feeling this way. You are not alone... No honestly LV 8.0 is really buggy. LV 8.20 is a step towards better direction. p.s. Where have you received information that there will not be a maintenance release for 8.20? Tomi Quote Link to comment
JohnRH Posted March 14, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 QUOTE(Tomi Maila @ Mar 13 2007, 03:38 PM) ...p.s. Where have you received information that there will not be a maintenance release for 8.20? ... I am possibly (hopefully!) making an incorrect assumption. I inferred this from a recent post by an NI member regarding one of the recent bugs discussed in the LV8.2 bug forum. They mention that the specific bug mentioned will be fixed in the next major LabVIEW release. (I think it was the TDMS file reference bug) I really hope that I am wrong, and that there will be an interm bug fix release. Quote Link to comment
Jim Kring Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 QUOTE(JohnRH @ Mar 13 2007, 01:11 PM) I am possibly (hopefully!) making an incorrect assumption. I inferred this from a recent post by an NI member regarding one of the recent bugs discussed in the LV8.2 bug forum. They mention that the specific bug mentioned will be fixed in the next major LabVIEW release. (I think it was the TDMS file reference bug)I also wonder if the fact that they are already looking for beta testers for the next major release means anything regarding their intentions for interm releases. I really hope that I am wrong, and that there will be an interm bug fix release. In the interest of not spreading incorrect rumors it is probably good that you questioned me on that. Perhaps it would be appropriate for an NI member to respond? See http://forums.lavag.org/index.php?s=&showtopic=6533&view=findpost&p=25907' target="_blank">here. Quote Link to comment
JohnRH Posted March 14, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 QUOTE(Jim Kring @ Mar 13 2007, 04:29 PM) See http://forums.lavag.org/index.php?s=&showtopic=6533&view=findpost&p=25907' target="_blank">here. I feel better already. Quote Link to comment
Rick Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 QUOTE(JohnRH @ Mar 13 2007, 04:11 PM) I am possibly (hopefully!) making an incorrect assumption. I inferred this from a recent post by an NI member regarding one of the recent bugs discussed in the LV8.2 bug forum. They mention that the specific bug mentioned will be fixed in the next major LabVIEW release. (I think it was the TDMS file reference bug)I also wonder if the fact that they are already looking for beta testers for the next major release means anything regarding their intentions for interm releases. I really hope that I am wrong, and that there will be an interm bug fix release. In the interest of not spreading incorrect rumors it is probably good that you questioned me on that. Perhaps it would be appropriate for an NI member to respond? For what it's worth, I spoke with an NI app engineer trying to recover from the bug-induced: "bookkeep.cpp", line 887 error (mentioned elsewhere on this forum; more below) , yesterday. During that conversation I asked about the eminent quarterly service release (shipping very soon) and was told that there are NO LabVIEW-related fixes in this service release. The primary update being NI-DAQmx 8.5. BTW, my fix for the bookkeep.cpp error was indeed (following the advice from this forum) to force the mass recompile by holding ctl-shift while clicking the run button. I believe this was caused when a typedef mysteriously lost it's link to the custom typedef control (it became greyed-out) and I couldn't get it to relink properly. NI is aware of this bug and noted that all reports of it had in common the use of dynamic-dispatch terminals in the project... Rick Quote Link to comment
Tomi Maila Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 QUOTE(Rick @ Mar 14 2007, 05:54 PM) For what it's worth, I spoke with an NI app engineer trying to recover from the bug-induced: "bookkeep.cpp", line 887 error (mentioned elsewhere on this forum; more below) , yesterday. During that conversation I asked about the eminent quarterly service release (shipping very soon) and was told that there are NO LabVIEW-related fixes in this service release. The primary update being NI-DAQmx 8.5. You should call your NI app engineer again and ask him not to provide you with wrong information Quote Link to comment
JohnRH Posted March 15, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 QUOTE(Rick @ Mar 14 2007, 11:54 AM) ... During that conversation I asked about the eminent quarterly service release (shipping very soon) ... I was wondering about that as well. (I guess 'quarterly' doesn't necessarily mean every 3 months!) Quote Link to comment
Rick Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 QUOTE(Tomi Maila @ Mar 14 2007, 12:23 PM) You should call your NI app engineer again and ask him not to provide you with wrong information Could you elaborate on this? Do you have other info? I *hope* there will be updates to LV8.2, but this info came from an NI rep.... Quote Link to comment
Jim Kring Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 QUOTE(Rick @ Mar 14 2007, 10:09 AM) Could you elaborate on this? Do you have other info?I *hope* there will be updates to LV8.2, but this info came from an NI rep.... line ---- read ---- line Quote Link to comment
Neville D Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 QUOTE(Rick @ Mar 14 2007, 08:54 AM) During that conversation I asked about the eminent quarterly service release (shipping very soon) and was told that there are NO LabVIEW-related fixes in this service release. The primary update being NI-DAQmx 8.5.Rick Rick, My NI Rep told me the new version should be out in about 2 weeks. There are already new versions of NI Vision out on the NI website (Vision 8.2.1), so the LV version should be just around the corner. Neville. Quote Link to comment
REM1 Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 QUOTE(Rick @ Mar 14 2007, 12:09 PM) Could you elaborate on this? Do you have other info?I *hope* there will be updates to LV8.2, but this info came from an NI rep.... Post from an NI employee about upcoming releases. And, since I work in LabVIEW R&D and I'm putting the link here I suppose you could consider me another confirmation...despite the fact that I won't come out and plainly state what you are looking for. QUOTE(JohnRH @ Mar 14 2007, 11:44 AM) I was wondering about that as well. (I guess 'quarterly' doesn't necessarily mean every 3 months!) Well, assume that we were trying to get something specific in a given release (additional support for the release of a new OS...purely as a hypothetical example) and we thought that we could have everything ready to go but it would take an extra month. I would think that extra month time well spent rather than either putting out something prematurely to meet an arbitrary time schedule or delaying functionality for the same reason. Quote Link to comment
JohnRH Posted March 15, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 QUOTE(REM1 @ Mar 14 2007, 02:15 PM) ...Well, assume that we were trying to get something specific in a given release (additional support for the release of a new OS...purely as a hypothetical example) and we thought that we could have everything ready to go but it would take an extra month. I would think that extra month time well spent rather than either putting out something prematurely to meet an arbitrary time schedule or delaying functionality for the same reason. ... I am pleased to see at least one example of practical common sense being more important than a quarterly deadline. (one of the pet peaves I no longer have to deal with, now that I am an independent contractor) 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.