VSS: Vertical Stacked Sequence (Bad idea, don't vote for it!!!)

[altenbach]

(This is a preemptive idea posting to make sure it is out there and does not get any significant votes.)

Don't vote for this!

(Now we will see who is paying attention :D)

The seasoned text programmer has problems adapting to LabVIEW because of dataflow. The concept where sections without data dependency can execute in any order really messes with the mind. We don't really want to think that way. It would be so much easier to do a literal translation of text based code to LabVIEW if we had a vertical stacked sequence!

Now order is restored, code executes "line" by "line", top to bottom, and all race conditions are eliminated. It also saves energy because we only use one CPU core at any given moment. Keep it green! 🙂 This structure is even Energy Star rated and might qualify for a rebate from your local utility!

Look at the picture! Now we have LabVIEW code that even a text programmer can understand. 😄

Look ma, no tunnels... no branched wires! 😮

Sounds good, right? Please discuss below and prove me wrong! (... and please remember the bold red text above!).

Did I mention that this is a bad idea? Oh, yes I did... In the title!

[altenbach]

> All fun aside, how is this any different to the horizontal stacked sequence?

It is similar, but not quite the same. I can even imagine code where a vertical sequence would be more readable (e.g. in cases where each frame of a multiframe sequence content is "longish" and skinny). While it would seem like a logical extension to the structure arsenal, I don't think we really need it. NI should focus on better ideas. 😉

It is a step backwards, because any wiring between frames will tend to force right-to-left wires, unless we also introduce seqeunce locals on the right border that wold link to sequence locals of the left border in the frame below.

Virtually all of my sequences (except for the classic three-frame benchmarking template) are single frame flat sequences, and these are already vertical and horizontal at the same time. 😄

[TCPlomp]

---

altenbach wrote:

(Now we will see who is paying attention :D)

Message Edited by altenbach on 08-16-2009 11:46 AM

---

Well VADave didn't.

Ton

PS However I must resist to Kudo.

[Sean-user]

I am tempted to vote for it for no reason but flippancy.

You know, someone out there really thinks this is a good idea. I know the someone.

[Neil.Pate]

I actually kind of like this idea 🙂

[parthabe]

How come you call it as a Vertical "Stacked" Sequence, when actually it is a Vertical "Flat" Sequence? Typo, Altenbach... ?!

I too had to restrict myself (by pulling my rt hand from mouse with my left hand), from the star getting one more twinkle!

Message Edited by parthabe on 08-18-2009 04:50 AM

[altenbach]

> How come you call it as a Vertical "Stacked" Sequence, when actually it is a Vertical "Flat" Sequence? Typo, Altenbach... ?!

Good catch! Well, the real stacked sequence is stacked in the Z direction, out of the plane of the diagram. This one is stacked vertically, in the plane of the diagram. (At the same time, this also makes it flat, of course, because z=0). Overall, it shares several "features" with the stacked sequence, e.g. the need for right-to-left wires when wiring between adjacent frames. It also shares features with the flat sequence, e.g. the absence of sequence locals.

So, how else would you call it? The hybrid sequence? The vertical sequence? 🙂

Since it hopefully will not get implemented, we don't really need to agree on a name. 😄 

[McTOM]

That's a feature I actually wanted to suggest (and searched forum before doing so). I felt it would be useful because of long string constants I use for GUI, but somehow forgot about the wiring 

Meh, I think I'll just pack them to subVIs then.

[Darren]

Any idea that has received less than 2 kudos within 2 years after posting will be automatically declined.