BreakPoint
Rube Goldberg Code
I think we should calm this Rube Goldberg thread down a few notch.
"Labnoob, the original poster, finally "solves" the problem with only a linear memory leak and code that would make Rube Goldberg proud (top of image below)."
I think that's over the line. In that post the OP created a piece of code that solved his problem (without debugging and stress testing it to reweal the memory-leak). He just wanted to share it as he thought it solved the original problem.
For him that was a step in the right direction, to contribute back to the forums, right?. I don't know his LV experience, but I assume he didn't saw the memory leak. I'm not judging you, Altenbach, because your answer to the "solved post" was very constructive and stright forward, but I find it hard to not agree with LabNoob when he talks about public humiliation.
You create this Rube Goldberg post about the three code pieces, which gives me and others useful information about how you can simplify and fortify LabVIEW code, but are the comments like:
- The problem description is simple enough, but one hour later we get the first "blue" answer with a hair raising piece of code:
- Labnoob, the original poster, finally "solves" the problem with only a linear memory leak and code that would make Rube Goldberg proud (top of image below).
- Also, what's the obsession with sequence frames????
really necessary? And link that post back to the thread. I can understand that the poster can get that in the wrong way and understand it as public humiliating, since you mentiones his name in the same line as "making Rube Goldberg proud".
The comment about sequence frames I can understand, since it's general and there are many topics where the OP got a massive piece of code inside a sequence structure, but the other two..
I'll correct myself and aslo add this to the comment list in my post above.
"This post can be labeled Table Woes and is based on the comedy/tragedy of this thread".
It's not a polite way to reference to other people's thread.
@altenbach wrote:
... At least we no longer have any memory leak! Also, what's the obsession with sequence frames????
Re"Seq frame
Depending on the version of LV, a seq strutcture would hlpe the chunking logic to recognize a read-only operation (array in loop is looked at but never touched) and schedule it to occur before the operations that mod the data thereby eliminating a data copy. I have seen issues with a wire fork to check an array size duplicated a buffer but a seq frame "gave LV the hint" it needed to schedule the array size prior to the number crunching.
Just specualting,
Ben
@Even Deejay wrote:
I think we should calm this Rube Goldberg thread down a few notch.
Thanks for your concerns. Similar to text based code, it is sometimes difficult to relay the full meaning as a linear sequence of characters and things can be misunderstood or taken then wrong way. 😉
However, Instead of cluttering up the Rube Goldberg thread (it is already over 1000 posts!), feel free to start a new discussion, if you feel the general tone in the forum has deteriorated or needs discussing. I would prefer if we exclusively focus on code here.
Thanks! 😄
@James W wrote:
Wish that it were a simple as using a different browser.
The company IT policy will not support us for any problems on browsers other than IE.
is this an IE issue with the NI site or an issue with our IT security infrastructure - i.e. can anyone else duplicate on Internet Exploder 9?
James
Sorry, are you referring to anything specific in the RG thread or does this rather belong in the feedback forum? I am confused.
