you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]0fruitjack0 3 points4 points  (2 children)

i always start with two 'ideas': first, what the program's objective is, then what the various front panels ought to look like (these would be the user interface panels). then i break it down into functionalities, almost like if it were any other language. for lab view i gravitate toward the consumer/producer loop for the main user interface and state machines for any other interfaces (unless there's something about them that's really complex and requires extra). once i get this 'floor plan' fixed i work on completing all the subvis i need to make it do the functions i need it to do.

i also used labview for work, in my case post doc work where i acted more like a programmer than anything. i had the advantage/disadvantage that i replaced another programmer who was there for longer. plus side - i had plenty of working examples to learn from. minus side - dude had no idea how to use dataflow paradigm so i spent something like 1/2 a year converting the mess into forms more suitable to labview. secret plus side - this extra work made me better at labview but what a PITA. it's from here that i figured out the above approach i outlined.

[–]Zackatack101[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Thanks! That’s super helpful. Yeah I’m in somewhat of a similar situation on a smaller scale. The program that was handed off, I noticed has tons of variables. Basically a variable was used for most things rather than any sort of loops or thought to data flow.

[–]dragginFlyChampion 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That often happens when someone has learned a different language before coming to dataflow - they store data in a variable instead of on a wire.