LabVIEW Idea Exchange

The name of the "Get Date/Time in Seconds” function is misleading. The function should be renamed.

Details

• The current name does not make it clear which Date/Time it is going to return. The words "now" or "current" are missing.
• The "In Seconds" portion is misleading and unnecessary. The function correctly returns a timestamp data type. The timestamp represents a moment in time that is expressed not just in seconds, but also using lots of other time units such as days, hours, minutes, ms, us, ns, etc. I understand that when a timestamp is converted to a DBL, the value represents the fractional number of seconds since the beginning of the epoch, but this is an implementation detail. It should not be part of the name of the function.
• “Get Date/Time in Seconds” would be a suitable name for a conversion function that takes in a formatted Date/Time string and outputs a DBL that represents the number of seconds since the beginning of the epoch.

Names of equivalent functions in other languages

• .NET: System.DateTime.Now
• C++: std::chrono::system_clock::now()
• Python: datetime.now()

Notice that the equivalent function names contain the word "now" and omit "in seconds".

Perhaps the best new name for the function would be “Get Date/Time Now”. This name would be very much in line with the .NET, C++ and Python equivalent function names. This name would earn the "let's not reinvent the wheel" prize.

Nevertheless, I would be happy with the following names too:

• “Get Timestamp Now”
• “Get Current Date/Time”
• “Get Current Timestamp”

Notes

• Changing a primitive name may break VIs that use VI scripting to find or create this node. This is a downside. I believe that in this case the long-term benefits would outweigh the relatively minor annoyance of hopefully relatively few developers having to modify those scripting VIs to use the new primitive name.

Idea Part 1: The menu that appears when right-clicking an input of the Replace Array Subset node should contain Add Input and Remove Input options.

Idea Part 2: The QuickDrop Remove and Rewire tool (Ctrl + Space, Ctrl + Shift + R) should remove unwired inputs of the Replace Array Subset node.

This would be similar to the menus of several other well-loved nodes, such as the Build Array node.

Real-world example

The other day I wrote the following code:

Initially all the inputs of the Replace Array Subset node were wired. Then I realised I had made a mistake, and needed to remove the third-last pair of wires. I deleted the wires. So far so good.

I then selected the node and pressed Ctrl + Space, Ctrl + Shift + R to execute the QuickDrop Remove and Rewire tool, in the hope that it would eliminate the unwired input. It didn't. I then right-clicked the input, hoping to manually select Remove Input. That option didn't exist.

The only option I had was to manually disconnect the last four wires and reconnect them one input above, followed by removing the last input by dragging the bottom edge upwards.

Having to manually disconnect and reconnect wires was a little disconcerting. I wondered: what would have happened if I had made a mistake with say the second input, instead of the third-last input? A lot more manual wiring would have had to be redone.

Notes

• This idea is deeply related to the following idea: Add "Add Element" and "Remove Element" to the Index Array context menu. However, I arrived at it independently during recent real-world work, as described above.

The Wire Multiple Objects Together QuickDrop tool (Ctrl + W) is extremely useful. However, at the moment it has the following limitation.

The other day I found myself writing code like the following.

Naturally I tried using the QuickDrop Ctrl + W tool. However, it produced the result seen below, which is not what I wanted.

The Ctrl + W tool wires each source wire to a compatible (coerceable) destination. In the example above it wires to I32 and DBL destinations indiscriminately.

The desired outcome would be achieved if the tool preferred wiring to destinations that match the source data type exactly, before considering other compatible (coercible) destinations. In the example above, the tool should prefer the DBL destinations. It should wire to the DBL destinations first, before considering I32 destinations.

Notes

• The example above shows 10 wires being wired between the Index Array node and the Replace Array Subset node. The real-world VIs I was programming the other day required wiring multiple pairs of Index Array and Replace Array Subset nodes, some with as many as 30 wires between them. Wiring them manually was a tedious and time-consuming operation.
• This idea is somewhat related to the following idea: Improvement to the QuickDrop Ctrl+W tool: Wire constant to multiple destinations

I would like it if LabVIEW offered the option of creating Block-Diagram-Only VIs. These VIs would be just like regular VIs, but without the Front Panel window.

BD-Only VIs would be beneficial because:

• They would remove the need to spend a few seconds tidying up the Front Panel of every VI. In a large application most VIs do not have a user-facing GUI. Most of the time tidying up the FP is "busywork" that slows down the developer. (The alternative: creating BD code without ever looking at the FP results in the FP being a mess, which is even more undesirable than wasting a few seconds to tidy the FP up.)
• They would reduce the developer workload, thus making developers faster.
• They would reduce the surface-area of the codebase.
• They would replicate functionality that exists in all text-based languages where creating functions or methods does not involve "touching" a GUI.

BD-Only VIs would be my default choice for small, low-level VIs that serve as subVIs deep inside my application. For example, does a VI that takes "a", "b", and "c" as inputs, and outputs "3D Distance = sqrt(a^2 + b^2 + c^2)", really need a GUI (the Front Panel)? Do most class accessor VIs really need a GUI (the Front Panel)?

Notes

• I realise that implementing BD-Only VIs is not trivial. But I believe that the benefits would far outweigh the implementation cost.
• The Connector Pane functionality would have to be implemented in the Block Diagram. This has already been suggested by CaseyM in a comment to his popular Make the default behavior of opening a VI open ONLY the block diagram idea: "Hell, you could even add the connector pane wiring functionality to the BD - then I'd have even less reason to go to the FP on most VIs."
• Steen Schmidt has aluded to the need for BD-Only VIs in a comment from 2014 to the popular Allow ONLY the Block Diagram to be opened Without Front Panel idea: "But this idea of Jack's here is about being able to have the BD open only, and leave the FP closed. Not about having VIs without FP at all (that discussion is a totally separate one, which we will have hammered out in due time :-)."
• I would be happy if, for technical reasons, BD-Only VIs would use a dedicated file extension, for example ".vibd", similar to how malleable VIs use the dedicated file extension ".vim".
• It would be ideal if BD-only VIs could be converted to regular VIs, and vice-versa. But I would be happy if, for technical reasons, this is not possible or too difficult to implement.

Thanks!

When pressing the "Stop" button when your project is loading you get this screen

It seems that pressing "No" is the fastest way to abort loading but for bigger projects it still tries to load some classes/libraries/vi's which could take a lot of time.

I would love to see a way to abort loading the project instantly.