What are the main differences between Signal Express and Labview?

[hrh1818]

National Instruments provides a matrix so one can quickly compare the
various versions of Labview but no comparison of Signal Express with
Labview. Hence how does Signal Express compare with Labview? What
are some of the things one can do with Labview one can't do with
Signal Express?

Howard

[altenbach]

You cannot really compare the two.

• LabVIEW is a full featured programming language that lets you write any kind of program you like.
• SIgnal express is a interactive tool that allows you to do measurment and analysis without programming. 

What kind of measurments do you want to do and what kind of requirements do you have?

You can also see for yourself and download evaluation version of both. 🙂

[hrh1818]

On Sep 2, 12:10 pm, altenbach <x...@no.email> wrote:
> You cannot really compare the two.

Why?

>
> - LabVIEW is a full featured programming language that lets you write any kind of program you
like.

Which version of Labview are you referring to? I don't consider the
graphical version of Labview to be a full featured programming
language. LabWindows/CVI is by a long shot a lot closer to being a
full featured programming language than the graphical version of
Labview.

>
> - SIgnal express is a interactive tool that allows you to do measurment and analysis without programming.&nbsp;

I have also heard the same comments about Labview in the past.

>
> What kind of measurments do you want to do and&nbsp;what kind of&nbsp;requirements do you have?
> &nbsp;
> You can also see for yourself and download evaluation version of both. 🙂

No thanks, there has to be a better way to get an answer to my
question than get involved in a two month study project.

Howard

[PJS]

I am going to say that you have opened yourself up for holy hell by saying LabVIEW is not a programming language  What is your definiition of a programming language?  Why, in your mind does LabVIEW not qualify? as for CVI, as it is an extended langauge based on ansi C, your assertion that it is closer to a language, implying that it is not a language either shows that you have no background in determining what tool you need or that you have been biased against NI products and are showing an inability to think for yourself.  
As for comparing the two, signal express gives you the ability to script specially prepared code modules.  It is expandable ONLY by either downloading new modules, or writing ones in, pick your favorite language, but these modules are what they are, and can only do exactly what they are programmed, you can only modify the parameters that the programmer gives you access to. The user can only modify the order of execution of the blocks, and parameters that run within the blocks, but can not change the functionality of the blocks. 
LabVIEW conversely allows you to develop your modules in any way you wish to program them.  Yes you can download them, but like any language, you can download either source code that you can directly integrate, code snippetts that you can add to your code, or developed executables.  In the case of the previous two, you can directly integrate them, or modify and integrate them... but you have access to the source code (in most cases), and can  change the functionality at will. 
If you can tell us what your trying to do, what your end goals are, and avoid flaming a hard core following, you will probably get answers to your specific question.  But your existing question is like asking for someone to compare microsoft paint to autocad. and being frustrated that there is not a comparison chart between the two.  The fact that you have no point of reference for either one, taints your perception on answer that will be given here.

[Dennis_Knutson]

LabVIEW is the programming language that was used to create the application called Signal Express. Comparing the two is like comparing C++ and Excel.

I've been using LabVIEW since version 3 and I've used LabWindows since version 1. Both are full featured programming languages with different strengths and weaknesses. It doesn't sound like you've used LabVIEW much if at all. What exactly do you base your statement on?

[hrh1818]

On Sep 2, 9:40 pm, Dennis Knutson <x...@no.email> wrote:
> LabVIEW is the programming language that was used to create the application called Signal Express. Comparing the two is like comparing C++ and Excel.
> I've been using LabVIEW since version 3 and I've used LabWindows since version 1. Both are full featured programming languages with different strengths and weaknesses. It doesn't sound like you've used LabVIEW much if at all. What exactly do you base your statement on?

I am looking at page 23 in National Instruments 2007 Measurements and
Automation Catalog. At the top of the page it says "Labview Graphical
Development Program Platform". Further down on the same page it says
"The open Labview graphical development environment comprises four key
elements.
1. Intuitive graphical programming language for engineers and
scientists.
2. Interactive, application specific development tools and libraries.
3. Hundreds of built-in instruments, I/O, control, analysis and
presentation functions.
4. Deployment to desktop, mobile, industrial, and embedded computing
targets.
No where does it say anything about the object oriented programming
capability of Labview. If a programming language doesn't have object
oriented capability like C# or C++ it is not a full featured
programming language.

Howard

[altenbach]

---

hrh1818 wrote: Which version of Labview are you referring to? I don't consider the graphical version of Labview to be a full featured programming language. LabWindows/CVI is by a long shot a lot closer to being a full featured programming language than the graphical version of Labview.

---

Howard,

You clearly don't know what you are talking about. There is no "graphical version" of LabVIEW, there is just LabVIEW. Click on the article "Is LabVIEW a general purpose programming language?" written by the Jeff K. for some easy reading from a few years ago. It is all still true (except that object oriented features and recursion have been added in recent versions). 🙂

One of the main points at this years NI-week was the discussion of how processor development is switching more and more to multicore designs  to improve performance because a simple boost in clock frequency is becoming more difficult. Linear, text based code is not well suited to take advantage of multticore design, while the dataflow based LabVIEW programming language automatically scales well to multiple processor cores, without any need to rewrite older code. I would say that only LabVIEW is futureproof in this respect. LabVIEW programmers are not wimps that are simply too stupid to write text based code. LabVIEW is not a toy language for people that don't want to learn a "real" programming language.

LabVIEW is arguably the best programming language in terms of getting things done! I've never felt limited with LabVIEW and my programs often don't even have anything to do with data acquisition or instrument control. The difference between text based code vs. LabVIEW is like "DOS vs. Windows", "Radio vs. HD television". "Trilobyte vs. Homo sapiens" (sorry Putnam :D). Text based code is monochrome, archaic and outdated and its linearity imposes unecessary constraints on the programmer that can only be (partially) overcome by wasting even more time throwing even more code at it.

Sure, a seasoned text based programmer will initially have problems adapting to LabVIEW, just because you would need to adapt to and embrace the power of dataflow and not try to make a literal translation of the text code to LabVIEW, retaining old habits. If you get stuck, come back and ask here in the forum.

You were looking for object oriented features and failed. All you need to do is a quick site search. All the information is out there. Just because you cannot find it in the first five sentences of the glossy brochure does not mean it does not exist. Maybe you want to read one of the application notes such as:

LabVIEW Object-Oriented Programming: The Decisions Behind the Design

In general, you should avoid judgement until you have all information. Your opinions seem quite biased and superficial and not really based on hard facts.

Initially you asked about the difference between signal express and LabVIEW.

---

@hrh1818 wrote:
> What kind of measurments do you want to do and what kind of requirements do you have?
> You can also see for yourself and download evaluation version of both. 🙂

No thanks, there has to be a better way to get an answer to my
question than get involved in a two month study project.

---

If you would answer the first question quoted above, we could certainly help you with the decision. Isn't that the main purpose of this thread?

You can also contact your local LabVIEW Field Engineer to go over your requirements and help you make a decision. They usually know their stuff! 🙂

Message Edited by altenbach on 09-02-2007 11:51 PM

[Norbert_B]

---

@hrh1818 wrote:
No where does it say anything about the object oriented programming
capability of Labview. If a programming language doesn't have object
oriented capability like C# or C++ it is not a full featured
programming language.


Howard

---

Howard,

if i look at the quotation i made, i asume there are more programming-languages out there you tend to call "not a programming language" than other ones.
You are correct, that OOP seems to be one major feature of more present programming languages, but it is not a prerequisite!
And as Altenbach already stated, LV incorporated some kind of OOP with version 8.2. Since LV is a graphical programming language (yes, it is one, regardless if you like it or not) which uses dataflowprogramming in the first place, there are some differences to classical OOP-languages like C++. You can start here with information.

My personal opinion regarding LV is:
- LV is very often underestimated. Like you implied, many people think that LV is a toy, no programming language. But it definetly is one and if you dont follow the rules of programming (style and so on) you will mess your code up in a very bad way. This is not the fault of LV, but your own.....
- LV is a great tool standing side by side with other languages like Ansi C or even C++. There are, like Dennis wrote, advantages and disadvantages from the different ADEs for different programming tasks. So you want to choose the ADE you are most common with and which solves your issue best. And sometimes, LV would be perharps the choice (just say FPGA or RT).....
- Most people think that graphical programming leads to heavy losses in performance. That is not true. There are cases where LV is even faster than C++. But you have to remind yourself for another fact: how much time do you invest until you get a running piece of code? Esp. LV does here a very good job, even if during runtime it may be not optimum.....


hope this helps,
Norbert B.

[PJS]

I would add than Ansi C, Fortran and Pascal are not objected oriented.  Would you also argue they are not progamming languages.  As for your reference to C++. It was a bandaid to C to attempt to make it object oriented.  It is still not a true object oriented language.  But what relevance does any of this have to solving your problem?

[Gabi1]

what a beautifull discussion! it seems we definitely need to spread the truth out there. Maybe Ni ought to make some free LV version for everybody to try out?

About the subject: arent you looking for excuses not to do rather than just do? if you feel more confortable with C/C++, and need OO for this project, well, signal-express is not for you to begin with, and Labview will only induce you frustration, being so alienated against it already.

anyhow: for an specific task, i have never (ever) seen a C/C++/Fortran programmer doing the job as fast as done in Labview. with just that in mind, LV is already worth consideration. 

Message Edited by Gabi1 on 09-03-2007 09:50 AM