Real For Loop

[tbob]

With text based languages, the For Loop has a programmable starting index, stopping index, and step size.  With Labview, the starting index is always zero and the step size is always 1.  It is not changeable.  I would like to see Labview have a real For Loop where there would be three terminals inside the For Loop that can be set by the user.  One terminal for initial value (starting index), one for final value (stopping index), and one for step size.  This would be of great value to all Labview programmers.  Of course the terminals can be much smaller than what is displayed in the picture.  One or two letter terminals, such as ST for start, SP for stop, and SZ for step size would do fine.  (or N for initial value, F for fnal value, and S for step size).  The real for loop should be capable of going in a negative direction, like starting at 10, ending at -10, with a step size of -2.

[AristosQueue (NI)]

> Its really causing us real programmers some problems.

We know. It is something that we continue to work on. The palettes really are the one major sticking point.

Having said that... you should take a look at the Express VIs. There are several of them that I highly recommend become regular tools for real programmers... the IO Assistant in particular.

> Management will then turn to professionals to do the job.

I wish that were true. It appears that instead they move to competitors.

[ASInc]

Perhaps the installer could offer up a few "default" IDE configurations.  One for basic users (current), and one for advanced users (that has all the stuff we all normally do to a clean install before we start working)?

[AristosQueue (NI)]

Yeah, that was our thought... LV R&D prototyped I don't know how many versions of LV 7.0 with various "first launch" dialogs that asked which configuration you wanted. The people working on it tried many phrasings of the question. No single question that we asked would get customers to answer "the right way", by which I mean, the way that, in the objective judgement of someone looking over their shoulder, would make them most productive. Move it beyond a single question and people got frustrated with the first-launch experience. And if they answered wrong on the single question, it was the same fallout as if we hadn't asked at all -- programmer users frustrated at the limited palettes, Express users frustrated at the flooded palettes. Asking didn't help.

> One for basic users (current), and one for advanced users (that has all the stuff we all normally do to a clean install before we start working)?

If we ask about "experienced" users, many of the Express users are upgrade customers.

If we ask about "large app" users, many of the programmers are just writing small tools.

If we ask about "full palettes" vs "limitied palettes" or "basic palettes", everyone chooses "full" (even though some of them then complain about there being too much -- it's irrational, but it happens).

If we ask about "programmer" vs "tester", results are all over the place.

[ASInc]

What about asking something like: "Do you plan to use LabVIEW as a programming language, or a measurement tool?"

[tst]

Putting any additional effort into this is somewhat pointless. If you're a serious LV user, get to know the tool, configure it once and then drag your INI file with you through the different versions.

So yes, digging through the Options dialog may not be fun (some people would consider it fun), but that's the price of a complex tool.

[elset191]

---

@Aristos wrote:

Having said that... you should take a look at the Express VIs. There are several of them that I highly recommend become regular tools for real programmers... the IO Assistant in particular.

---

It would be real swell if you made a "Endorsed by Aristos" Express VI list.

[Intaris]

OR just pop over HERE and vote for web-based INI files which will allow us to maintian some default community settings as we see fit.......

[Todd S.]

See additional idea conversations below