View Single Post
  #33   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 18-01-2010, 18:12
BLAQmx's Avatar
BLAQmx BLAQmx is offline
Software Engineer
no team (National Instruments)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 100
BLAQmx is a glorious beacon of lightBLAQmx is a glorious beacon of lightBLAQmx is a glorious beacon of lightBLAQmx is a glorious beacon of lightBLAQmx is a glorious beacon of lightBLAQmx is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Curiosity on why most teams choose LabView

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Copioli View Post
Our team uses Windriver primarily because our team has many students who are programmers. Programmers use programming languages. Labview is written in a programming language. I suspect that it was written in c/c++.
LabVIEW is written both in C/C++ and LabVIEW. LabVIEW can also target and program a variety of micro controllers including ARM and ADI Blackfin. It can be used the write software for Mac, Linux, and PC.

Quote:
I personally enjoy the flexability that programming languages provide. They are universal allowing developers to write software for a variety of processor platforms.
Are .NET and Cocoa not programming languages by this definition?

But, we should all probably quick hijacking this thread... Back to the original question - I think LabVIEW is a good choice because it can lower the barrier for entry for computer programming without preventing teams from writing powerful software. LabVIEW is also a great icebreaker for those who find the syntax of text base programming difficult, but still want to learn the basic computer science concepts that are shared across all programming languages.

While working tech support last year I told many teams that were successful with LabVIEW to experiment with C++ in the off season. You can only benefit by challenging yourself and learning as many languages as possible to prepare for college and your career.
__________________
NI FIRST Community: Where to go for LabVIEW, Wind River, cRIO-FRC, and NXT support.
Reply With Quote