LabVIEW Pros vs. Cons?

[rolfk]

---

@Doc937 wrote:

If you want to be accurate, writing in assembly language is the only truly efficient code.

---

Actually that may be correct if you are a truely amazing assembly wizard, but in general with nowadays complex multi core CPU architectures I'm pretty convinced that most attempts at assembly coding will be much more prone to pipeline stalling and other performance bottlenecks than relying on a modern and proven C compiler.

[Synaesthete]

I had a good conversation recently with another programmer about the idea of writing a modern, full-featured application in assembly.  The conclusion we came to was that in the process of doing so, you would likely end up creating your own abstractions that would begin to resemble higher-level programming.  In a way, for every software system you try to build, you can imagine a "natural language" that fits that concept best--which is why we have several programming languages and not just one.  You could also say there's a "natural order" to software architecture.  However, it's also possible to achieve the same thing with two totally different architectures or languages, like multiple solutions to an equation.  I believe that for every language+application+architectural style there are only a few "crystalline" solutions that fit an application perfectly, and a multitude of more Goldbergian solutions.  The book Godel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter makes this concept pretty clear, although it was written contemporaneously with the development of modern high-level programming so the ideas aren't always explicitly related to software.  Since there is a "natural order" or "natural language" for describing different systems, from a theoretical standpoint, a program should be written using several languages and linked together with a common or universally adaptable messaging scheme.  This order to information occurs naturally in biological, social, ecosystems, and cybernetic systems in general, but has been poorly implemented in software.

[WayneS1324]

I went through my LabVIEW phase. I swore by it and preached it to all who would listen. I developed two large projects using it. Then it got boring.

Almost like 'if you've seen one block diagram, you've seen them all'. There was nothing new and exciting around the corner. So now I've convinced

the powers that be to move our engineering programming language from LabVIEW to C#/Measurement Studio. Now the old excitement is back.

Now I feel like a programmer again.

That being said... I never once had any problems with LabVIEW. I find it a terrific general purpose programming language. Its simply a matter of personal

preference. I'd rather write code. I feel I'm more productive that way and I enjoy it. I'd rather use C++ as opposed to C# (but not C... Much respect to you guys! ).

Not that this adds to the discussion... but its my two cents.

[RavensFan]

---

@WayneS1324 wrote:

I went through my LabVIEW phase. I swore by it and preached it to all who would listen. I developed two large projects using it. Then it got boring.

Almost like 'if you've seen one block diagram, you've seen them all'. There was nothing new and exciting around the corner. So now I've convinced

the powers that be to move our engineering programming language from LabVIEW to C#/Measurement Studio. Now the old excitement is back.

Now I feel like a programmer again.

---

I'd be concerned about a company that is willing to so quickly jump from one programming environment to another just because their programmer got bored with it.

[rolfk]

---

@Ravens Fan wrote:

---

@WayneS1324 wrote:

I went through my LabVIEW phase. I swore by it and preached it to all who would listen. I developed two large projects using it. Then it got boring.

Almost like 'if you've seen one block diagram, you've seen them all'. There was nothing new and exciting around the corner. So now I've convinced

the powers that be to move our engineering programming language from LabVIEW to C#/Measurement Studio. Now the old excitement is back.

Now I feel like a programmer again.

---

I'd be concerned about a company that is willing to so quickly jump from one programming environment to another just because their programmer got bored with it.

---

Depends on the size of the company.

If the programmer in question is the sole programming departement of the company I would see good reason to do so. If it is a larger company I would wonder too as you do.

[WayneS1324]

I work for a large company.

Allow me to elaborate. The engineering department is divided up into sections. My section contains 5 or 6 people (technicians and two engineers).

The 'powers that be' are the two engineers. They're both old school FORTRAN guys so they were recpetive to the change. This change has zero impact

on the overall company. Our section is the only section that develops software for our needs. I'm the programmer.

I should have been more specific. My apologies.

[Otoro2]

I think most people who jumped from labVIEW have another good decision in their profession career.

The fact is we are just people hired to provide solutions, by expanding our knowledge and updated our skills we become more marketable in this crazy world of programming.

In the past 10 years there is nothing that LabVIEW gives that is revolutionary other than memory leaks... and issues with large application. If you try to work in some other area of technology other than test and measurement having a "Certified Developer of LabVIEW" means nothing compared to other language. 

So if you ever want to work in other 99% of technology market you BETTER diversified your programming skills....

[crossrulz]

---

Otoro2 wrote:

In the past 10 years there is nothing that LabVIEW gives that is revolutionary other than memory leaks... and issues with large application.

---

Sounds like architecture issues to me.  With good practices and architectures, you'd be amazed at the programs we can make with LabVIEW.  Just look at what SpaceX did.  I'm just saying don't blame LabVIEW for a programmer's short comings.

---

Otoro2 wrote:

If you try to work in some other area of technology other than test and measurement having a "Certified Developer of LabVIEW" means nothing compared to other language. 

---

It's "Certiflied LabVIEW Developer".  And having a CLA does matter (or so my experience has told me).

[SteveChandler]

---

Otoro2 wrote:

So if you ever want to work in other 99% of technology market you BETTER diversified your programming skills....

---

I wish the forums had a poll feature. Oh well. How many other languages do you LabVIEW programmers know?

Otoro2, if your comment were taken out of context I would agree because I would think you were talking about different architectures, OOP, serialization, design patterns, network protocols, frameworks, different data persistance methods, etc.

But in context I take your comment about diversified skills to mean "number of languages". I would think that there are very few good LabVIEW programmers that do not know how to use other programming languages. Repeat after me: "Software design is software design is software design".

[Otoro2]

I actually interview senior engineers that want to get into the company i work for. 

Let me say "Software design is software design" does not translate to actually "good programmers" Cannot remember how many senior level programmers from multinational company that ends up in "Reject bin" because they claim "Good software design" but in reality break down on interview.

So you can claim what you did in resume but unless you actually bring it on... you are just some guy who talk much but no proof...