E-List

[becktho]

Hi Ben

I don't know what CC would say, but as far as I know, with this frog it all startet as a ringtone for mobile phones. In several european countrys "the crazy frog" released a cd with a few songs.

The itself may be ok - but what lots of europeans associate with it - annoying and almost offending . The main problem was (now it's getting better again) that everytime, when there were commercials on tv, the crazy frog watched you from the screen with it's ringtone-sound.

Hope this helps you understanding the "AFM" (Anti-Frog Movement)

Thomas

[RayFarmer]

and the song (using the term loosely) was number 1 in the UK top ten.....

It got annoying, awhile back, because of the TV ad that bombarded the UK every 15mins and probably else where in the world. I dont think I have every heard an actual phone that has this ringtone. Must be the younger generation that have it, oops showing my age.

[chilly_charly]

Ben and friends,



Any information about my avatar can be found in this wikipedia article

[Ray.R]

From the article:

"the Crazy Frog brand has drawn a great deal of criticism, with advertising authorities being inundated with complaints about the frequency and focus of the adverts, and the display of the frog's genitalia"

aaahh... euh,... yeah..  ok...  yes... I saw that..  although not trying to... I think it's best that tst stays away from the article..  Wouldn't want to get Lucy excited... 😉

😐

it give a whole new meaning to the term "jingle"..

[Ben]

I had a feeling I would be sorry I asked!

Speaking of being sorry...

CC et al,

I am in a rather fiesty mood and I am in the mood to make trouble.

For quite a while I have felt that the LV style guide worried about a lot of silly things and suggested techniques that were OK "back in the day" but have been out-grown by LV.

To start this out I am including the results of a VI Analyzer run against ListVIEW.

It lists about 500 issues. Technically if we stick to the style guide that would be 500 reasons this code doesn't warrent being StarWare.

I do not buy that line of thought.

I understand we can customize the VI Analyzer but then what SHOULD the recomended standards be?

I have other thoughts that are not covered by the VI Analyzer things like;

1)Graphic icons

2) Put controls in the events that support them. This way you can double-click and find the event that supports the control. etc.

So before I start talking about what I THINK is good and bad about your code, I thought it may be useful to first talk about what is GOOD and what is BAD?

So what do Y'all think?

Ben

Message Edited by Ben on 09-28-2005 08:33 AM

[LV_Pro]

I wonder if NI uses this tool to grade LabVIEW certified developer exams? A large percentage of the exam points are awarded (or not!) based on stylistic issues.  There was a pretty good thread a few weeks back where questions were being asked regarding what made something stylistically "bad" vs "good". I personally know good art when I see it I have been running into some inherent facets of LabVIEW as it is evolving (through intelligent design ) that annoy me esthetically.   Have you dealt with .NET components. You kind of instantiate a .NET component, have a vi that has been written to "catch" the result of the .NET "event" and not a dataflow to be found. Really feels wrong to this wirehead.

Ring-a-ding-ding ... repeat ad nauseum!

P.M.

[RayFarmer]

I have had a little play with the VI analyzer tool.  You have to be a bit disciplined to use it. Otherwise you just switch most of it off and "...ow look at that its a good one"

Ray

[Enrique]

The article in Wikipedia about that frog is longer than the article about LabVIEW or about National Instruments. (The article about NI is still a stub!)

---

@chilly charly wrote:
Ben and friends,



Any information about my avatar can be found in this wikipedia article

---

[chilly_charly]

Ben

I apologize. I should never have asked for your comments. As an "annoying thing", you are much worse than a bataillon of crazy frogs ! 😄









comment at first sight : May be we could derive an overall quality index with the VI Analyser tool : number of passed tests over total test number : 1616/1880 = 0.86. Not so bad 😉



comment after some brain work : As it is, the VI Analyzer can't be really considered as a tool for overall quality assessment.









The report appears to be far from perfect :




1/ I don't believe I have that much wires running under controls or structures, just because I take a great care of that. There are very few of them, and that was even deliberate, to simplify large diagram when some functions have no go-through connectors.




2/ Some failed test are quite surprizing such as :




"Justify boards.vi




Arrays and Strings in Loops This Concatenate Strings function is inside a For Loop. Every time characters are appended to the string, LabVIEW must reallocate the memory buffer and copy the entire string to a new location. This can cause execution time to become slower with each loop iteration." May be I missed something but I do not see another way of appending chars to an array of string !





3/ Other failed tests are probably specific to your own set-up, such as the minimal wire length, the max wire bends, the warnings about the dialog-style controls, the fonts used and the window size.








All together, I found that about 70% of the comments were inappropriate. While most others were just multiple instances of the same thing (error handling, lack of documentation...)









Ultimately, I recognize less than 10 comments as being really pertinent !
These are the warnings about the duplicate labels, the not-empty list and tables,
the number of coercion dots on a single wire, the index data type not being an I32.







I suppose this tool could be of much better value to beginners, since it seems to be able to track all basic mistakes. That's something that should be mandatory in any teaching center. It is also probably the last solution for "advanced" users to keep improving their diagram quality (as evidenced by my own reaction here ! ;))









I don't see what kind of control/analyze the VI analyser could do on icons. The few attempts made here about the icon not being surrounded by a full size frame are again inappropriate, since the icons were deliberately made smaller !









The idea of putting automatically controls in the corresponding event frame is nice. Of course that should remain an option, and there should be some mechanism for deciding which frame to use in case the same control fires different events









May be we could consider applying reverse logic to the findings of the VI analyzer : if the mistakes are so numerous, this means probably that LV is not user friendly enough...




1- For instance, empty strings should be easier to replace by the empty string constant with a simple right-click,




2- A general "disable debug" command should be avalaible,




3- Access to the vi properties could be more direct. For example, using a spreadsheet type table, one could document easily each vi...etc...

[RayFarmer]

CC,

"I suppose this tool could be of much better value to beginners, since it seems to be able to track all basic mistakes. That's something that should be mandatory in any teaching center. It is also probably the last solution for "advanced" users to keep improving their diagram quality (as evidenced by my own reaction here ! )"

I dont think a beginner would gain anything from this tool, that person would spend too much time trying to eliminate all the failures rather than getting the design right.

eg does it really matter that your wire has a step in it that is below the user-specified minimum pixel length. NO!

I think if you were going to use this tool, you would have to agree with your software quality person what tests matter and what don't.

Ray.