Comments on: LabVIEW is an irrelevant programming language http://thinkinging.com/2007/05/30/labview-is-an-irrelevant-programming-language/ an unfiltered stream of data flow consciousness Fri, 5 Sep 2008 20:05:48 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Jim Kring http://thinkinging.com/2007/05/30/labview-is-an-irrelevant-programming-language/#comment-371 Jim Kring Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:31:48 +0000 http://thinkinging.com/2007/05/28/labview-is-an-irrelevant-programming-language/#comment-371 Dave, Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It's interesting to here another author's opinion on this subject. > In my experience, no IDE for any of the apparently “relevant” languages even comes close! Irrelevant, or just superior design? You tell me… :-) I'd say, it's the latter (although, I'm biased) ;-) Cheers, -Jim Dave,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It’s interesting to here another author’s opinion on this subject.

> In my experience, no IDE for any of the apparently “relevant” languages even comes close! Irrelevant, or just superior design? You tell me… :-)

I’d say, it’s the latter (although, I’m biased) ;-)

Cheers,

-Jim

]]> By: Dave Ritter http://thinkinging.com/2007/05/30/labview-is-an-irrelevant-programming-language/#comment-368 Dave Ritter Sun, 17 Jun 2007 03:23:08 +0000 http://thinkinging.com/2007/05/28/labview-is-an-irrelevant-programming-language/#comment-368 The lower number of book sales is perhaps a testament to LabVIEW's superior ease-of-use and to a lesser extent, the quality of NI's own documentation. I have dozens of books on text-based programming languages -- languages I don't routinely use -- and only 4 on LabVIEW (not including my own). In fact, I had been using LabVIEW professionally for more than 6 months before I hit the wall and picked up Gary Johnson's original LabVIEW book. Good software is self-evident. Users can learn through exploration and trial-and-error. LabVIEW is built for simple trial-and-error. After almost 10 years of wire-working, I still find myself wiring up a simple test VI to refresh my memory as to the operation of an infrequently used function. This isn't to suggest I haven't learned valuable tips and insights from the LabVIEW books I HAVE purchased. However, in most cases, the tool provides the answers. In my experience, no IDE for any of the apparently "relevant" languages even comes close! Irrelevant, or just superior design? You tell me... :-) The lower number of book sales is perhaps a testament to LabVIEW’s superior ease-of-use and to a lesser extent, the quality of NI’s own documentation. I have dozens of books on text-based programming languages — languages I don’t routinely use — and only 4 on LabVIEW (not including my own). In fact, I had been using LabVIEW professionally for more than 6 months before I hit the wall and picked up Gary Johnson’s original LabVIEW book.

Good software is self-evident. Users can learn through exploration and trial-and-error. LabVIEW is built for simple trial-and-error. After almost 10 years of wire-working, I still find myself wiring up a simple test VI to refresh my memory as to the operation of an infrequently used function. This isn’t to suggest I haven’t learned valuable tips and insights from the LabVIEW books I HAVE purchased. However, in most cases, the tool provides the answers.

In my experience, no IDE for any of the apparently “relevant” languages even comes close! Irrelevant, or just superior design? You tell me… :-)

]]> By: Jim Kring http://thinkinging.com/2007/05/30/labview-is-an-irrelevant-programming-language/#comment-320 Jim Kring Tue, 05 Jun 2007 07:12:13 +0000 http://thinkinging.com/2007/05/28/labview-is-an-irrelevant-programming-language/#comment-320 Hello All: I've just written a short article about <a href="http://thinkinging.com/2007/06/05/putting-on-my-text-based-programmer-hat-a-php-weekend/" rel="nofollow">my weekend as a text-based (PHP) programmer</a>. Boy, am I glad I'm not coding in a "relevant" programming language every day. :p Hello All: I’ve just written a short article about my weekend as a text-based (PHP) programmer. Boy, am I glad I’m not coding in a “relevant” programming language every day. :p

]]> By: otman http://thinkinging.com/2007/05/30/labview-is-an-irrelevant-programming-language/#comment-315 otman Sat, 02 Jun 2007 05:31:55 +0000 http://thinkinging.com/2007/05/28/labview-is-an-irrelevant-programming-language/#comment-315 comparing labview to text-based languages like java is like comparing apples to oranges. labview greatest strength is in the test and measurement field for which it was originally designed. as with every great tool though, engineers have found many uses beyond its traditional use. my two cents. comparing labview to text-based languages like java is like comparing apples to oranges. labview greatest strength is in the test and measurement field for which it was originally designed. as with every great tool though, engineers have found many uses beyond its traditional use. my two cents.

]]> By: crelf http://thinkinging.com/2007/05/30/labview-is-an-irrelevant-programming-language/#comment-307 crelf Wed, 30 May 2007 16:32:18 +0000 http://thinkinging.com/2007/05/28/labview-is-an-irrelevant-programming-language/#comment-307 Basing a language's popularity on book sales is poor science at best, manipulative at worst. Basing a language’s popularity on book sales is poor science at best, manipulative at worst.

]]> By: Matt Holt http://thinkinging.com/2007/05/30/labview-is-an-irrelevant-programming-language/#comment-305 Matt Holt Wed, 30 May 2007 14:02:07 +0000 http://thinkinging.com/2007/05/28/labview-is-an-irrelevant-programming-language/#comment-305 Irrelevant... hmm... thousands of our products that were tested with LabVIEW, software applications for system monitoring written in LabVIEW, literally millions of products touched in some way by LabVIEW.... but that is *cough* irrelevant... I guess he did at least mention LabVIEW. I still think it is "G Envy" Irrelevant… hmm… thousands of our products that were tested with LabVIEW, software applications for system monitoring written in LabVIEW, literally millions of products touched in some way by LabVIEW…. but that is *cough* irrelevant…
I guess he did at least mention LabVIEW. I still think it is “G Envy”

]]> By: Carsten http://thinkinging.com/2007/05/30/labview-is-an-irrelevant-programming-language/#comment-304 Carsten Wed, 30 May 2007 10:35:17 +0000 http://thinkinging.com/2007/05/28/labview-is-an-irrelevant-programming-language/#comment-304 Yes, LV is irrelevant for most programmers and IMO it's because of one important reason: you have to buy it (and it's not inexpensive)! If there were free alternatives (at least with the basic language features) I could image a wider use of G/LV. And another thing is that you're stuck to one company and one IDE if you decide to use LV. For most programming languages you can switch IDE if the development isn't as you like it (depending on the features you used it might not be easy, though)... Yes, LV is irrelevant for most programmers and IMO it’s because of one important reason: you have to buy it (and it’s not inexpensive)! If there were free alternatives (at least with the basic language features) I could image a wider use of G/LV.

And another thing is that you’re stuck to one company and one IDE if you decide to use LV. For most programming languages you can switch IDE if the development isn’t as you like it (depending on the features you used it might not be easy, though)…

]]>