09-14-2010 12:52 PM
Well i do only have to deal with the FAA and production testing is only relevant for TSO certification. So i have the feeling that this should not be an issue in our case. I have to admit that i would have like to have CVI defender (if there is some) to privode more argument 🙂
09-14-2010 01:01 PM
@jyce wrote:
Well i do only have to deal with the FAA and production testing is only relevant for TSO certification. So i have the feeling that this should not be an issue in our case. I have to admit that i would have like to have CVI defender (if there is some) to privode more argument 🙂
You won't find any CVI defenders here. However, you may find quite a few on the LabWindows/CVI board.
09-14-2010 01:11 PM
@tbob wrote:
@jyce wrote:
Well i do only have to deal with the FAA and production testing is only relevant for TSO certification. So i have the feeling that this should not be an issue in our case. I have to admit that i would have like to have CVI defender (if there is some) to privode more argument 🙂
You won't find any CVI defenders here. However, you may find quite a few on the LabWindows/CVI board.
There is one or two.
We USED to teach CVI and the instructor would alos do CVI projcts if the customers insisted. His estimation methodolgy was
A) Estimate how long in LV.
B) Multiple by 2 to estimate the CVI version.
We don't each it anymore (bring in NI to teach it when it gets scheduled) since there was not enough demand.
Take a look at that forum (linked by tbob) and then look a the LV forum. What you will find is that there is a lot more support for LV than CVI.
Ben
09-14-2010 01:38 PM
I think the best reason (already presented) for CVI is that you have a C background.
As cool as LV is, you need to get used to the new wiring 'dogma'. Look at the 'Local variable' thread here on breakpoint to avoid mistakes when using LV with a C background. Post code in the LV forum and be prepared to be attack harsh by some of us (we try not to do, but it happens). We are very nice and helpful persons, but we are pedantic when it goes about coding style.
If I remember correctly, there was a blog by Bob Harburger (?) who presented a CVI perspective on LV. You really might be intersted to get a CVI voice. If I remember correctly (again) he once voiced something like 'sect' (much politer) about the LV community. We all think it's superiour, we preach it, and you are either doing good code or the C-guy's mistakes. You should be able to google his blog.
You can try it using an eval version with a small project and post frequently to the forum and ask for criticism of your code.
On the very big pro side, if you want to learn LV, are open to the data flow paradigm: nothing will stop your coding if you combine it with the power of your C experience (if you need to write wrappers, interface hardware very low level....).
It would be a benefit for you if you have a background in EE, uml or anything else that likes to draw pictures instead of writing text. But be open minded is enough.
I tried to show you the con's of LV as good as I can. So join the 'sect'.
Felix
09-14-2010 01:48 PM
Ahaha, i have extensive software, and low level software background. But i have moved to hardware designer board and FPGA levels. I'm fairly flexible to lean new stuff and concept, i actually do love that.
But my job right now is to assess options and recommend the best option to programm management. And i will probably never have to write anything with LV or CVI.. I'm already playing with tutorial in LabVIEW after i tried the one in CVI and integrate all those little guys in TestStand. That is why i have to find the best compromise. If i was following my guts i would keep recommend to write drivers in C. And GUI using QT4. But i'm trying to lineup with industrial standard here. 🙂
I will have a look on the blog you talked and keep brainstorming with you guys
09-14-2010 01:51 PM
The availability of help is something that you should be concidering. I can shed no light but I would be interested if it was easier to find C developers that LV.
Ben
09-14-2010 02:23 PM
I do agree that the involvement of the community is an other criteria to take in account. The way i measured it was just by looking at the number of topicson the forum between LabVIEW and CVI. They are fairly close to each other but it would be more intereseting to have the actual total of posts instead of topics.
09-14-2010 02:31 PM
If you say you won't be the programmer at the end:
pro LV: If you are just a bit used to LV, it's very easy to see what's going on in the code of other programmers and judging how well they perform. You need to know the design patterns (and the advanced ones that are not common knownledge but discussed in the forums). But I think the graphical code of LV is much easier to read on a large scale than any text based code.
con LV: It then really depends on the willigness of the individual that needs to code it to get data flow or not. You won't have that problems getting a phyton or java used programmer to do CVI, as you would see with LV. If you can choose a fresh EE grad or of similar domain or can request for an LV specialist, really go for LV; otherwise CVI could be the safe bet.
Felix
09-14-2010 05:18 PM
History lesson:
I used LabWindows before LabVIEW. That was before there was a CVI at the end. It was a DOS program and did not run on any type of ms windows OS. When windows 3 was introduced, NI ported LabVIEW to that and I started using LabVIEW. NI then ported LabWindows to the windows OS and it gained the /CVI.
I mostly use LabVIEW but with TestStand, it's very handy to have CVI since much of the built-in steps and some of the special operator interfaces are written with CVI. Since it's so easy to mix and match LabVIEW and CVI steps, you can really use whatever you want. At my last job, a lot of the front end work was done with CVI and then all of the code at the end was LabVIEW. You use the best tool for the job.
Note on traceability - The NI Requirements Toolkit works with TestStand, LabVIEW, and CVI in the exact same manner. I also think the industry type is pretty irrelevant. I also know for a fact that there are large aerospace companies that are heavily invested in LabVIEW.
09-14-2010 05:27 PM
Well it would be nice to have both but i'm going to have a hard time explaining managmement we need to by development licences for three differents tools 🙂