LabVIEW
What's new in LabVIEW 2016
@crossrulz wrote:As nice as that would be, no. I do not expect many to know about this one.
And they don't need to. Just like some of the other cool development tools, the users of these tools don't need to know how they are made, just that they are awesome. If you could make your own LabVIEW primitives, why would it matter how they are made, just that they are stable and users can use them. Same for the Project Provider, or Project Templates, or heck scripting tools in general. I can't wait to see what is possible combining VIMs, with the new emerging features like the Channel Wires.
Just watched some parts of the keynotes + LV2016.
Channel wires.... 
I tend to agree with JeffK that the addition of LVFPGA indeed was a nice step function. Though, I would like to add LVOOP with inheritance as another step. Of course the introduction of LV itself back in the day was a leap. Graphical programming: Mindblowing paradigm shift.. 
As for "nextgen". Basically it was a "polished" LabVIEW with an IDE. Say hello to 2010.
Will it increase productivity and decrease developer frustration? Somehow I doubt it. A slick demo is one thing, getting it to run fast and problem free on a large application is another.
Here's a tip to NI: Throttle back the focus on making everything beginner friendly, "click and goey".
The kids of today can slap together a 3D game in python and C# in less time than it takes to complete one of your typical middle management slide decks.
A small reminder:
Mockery is the means used by the complexed ignorant to feel wise - Alejandro Jodorowski
My initial thoughts on the channel wire:
It's disturbing. It's just a gross violation of the dataflow "prime directive". You think there's enough confusion from the new LabVIEW users about why two loops wired together don't execute in parallel? Let's add one more level of complexity to the mix...
I'd like to see a LabVIEW for VR where you can wear VR goggles and program in 3 dimensions!
Can you imagine 3D spaghetti code? 😄
[edit] I think I already said that.[/edit]
@User002 wrote:Let me try this one more time:
Mockery is the means used by the complexed ignorant to feel wise - Alejandro JodorowskiDid it gain traction this time around?
Or is the problem perhaps intractable?
Sometimes what appears to be "mockery" is just you "poking a little fun at your best buddy."
- Bill Ko
@Bob_Schor wrote:
@billko wrote:My initial thoughts on the channel wire:
It's disturbing. It's just a gross violation of the dataflow "prime directive". You think there's enough confusion from the new LabVIEW users about why two loops wired together don't execute in parallel? Let's add one more level of complexity to the mix...
I've been "testing" Channel Wires for a year, ever since I learned how to "unlock" the primative version in LabVIEW 2015 and the more-polished version in LabVIEW 2016 Beta.
I agree totally with Jeff K that this is one of the best new features to LabVIEW that I've seen in, say, the past 5 years. It is especially important if you use parallel loops, as it greatly simplifies the logic of coordinating loop activity.
Like billko, when I first started "playing" with this concept, I also felt "Who needs this?". However, by the time the version in the Beta became available, and I had a better understanding of this "paradigm shift", I became a Believer ...
Bob Schor
I won't rule out a shift for me, either. After all, the first person to drive a car with an automatic transmission must have said the same thing.
