[davidthefat]

Originally Posted by gvarndell

Thanks for this. It is good information to know.

That said, it's not the compilation I was asking about.
Assuming that a node is what I was calling an icon and graphically represents some logical or computational operation, there must exist some sequence of machine instructions to implement that operation.
You referred to these as clumps.
An assertion was made that there is no traditional textual source code associated with clumps -- notwithstanding that that terminology was not part of the discussion.
My claim is simply that the machine instructions contained in those clumps almost certainly were produced by a traditional compiler using a traditional text-based programming language -- quite likely C.

For the record, this didn't start out as a Labview discussion and I didn't lead it here -- nor did I want to.
There was first a claim that iconic programming was replacing text based programming.
I claimed that, on the contrary, text based programming is the foundation upon which iconic programming is built.
Icons (nodes if you prefer) graphically represent machine code.
AFAIK, other than compiling and/or assembling text files, we have no spiffier way of producing the machine code.

Text based programming will NEVER go away, it will be used to code those programs that are iconic or whatever... The click and drop ones. and the text based programming will also code the operating systems. and I doubt there will be enough freedom in the drag and drop ones. They are all high level, which means you can't have pointers, you can directly mess with the memory, click and drag will never replace text based programming