PROGRAMMERS: WIND RIVER C++ vs LABVIEW vs JAVA

[apalrd]

Originally Posted by davidthefat

Personally I wouldn't call LabView coding at all...

LabVIEW IS coding. It's used often in the real world (although not on production things, many companies use it for testing and experimentation), its optimized to run on cRio's, can run on the FPGA too (although FIRST won't let us do that), has networked front panels, can execute C libraries (using Call Library Function), can run parallel tasks (multithreading) super-easily (try making two WHILE loops in C++ that run in parallel, you won't be able to do it as easy as you can in LabVIEW), the ability to make asynchronous calls easily (static VI ref + Invoke Node), built-in toolkits for PID, fuzzy logic, and toolkits available for many more cool things, through a number of sources, comparable to many C++ libraries. If you are just saying your language is better than LabVIEW, while I see how you could consider C++ or Java "real" programming, LabVIEW is real code too, it runs just as well, it is super-easy to debug, and it's alot easier to code then C++ or Java.

[davidthefat]

Originally Posted by apalrd

LabVIEW IS coding. It's used often in the real world (although not on production things, many companies use it for testing and experimentation), its optimized to run on cRio's, can run on the FPGA too (although FIRST won't let us do that), has networked front panels, can execute C libraries (using Call Library Function), can run parallel tasks (multithreading) super-easily (try making two WHILE loops in C++ that run in parallel, you won't be able to do it as easy as you can in LabVIEW), the ability to make asynchronous calls easily (static VI ref + Invoke Node), built-in toolkits for PID, fuzzy logic, and toolkits available for many more cool things, through a number of sources, comparable to many C++ libraries. If you are just saying your language is better than LabVIEW, while I see how you could consider C++ or Java "real" programming, LabVIEW is real code too, it runs just as well, it is super-easy to debug, and it's alot easier to code then C++ or Java.

But I will bet you C/C++ was used to program that LabView

[AmoryG]

Originally Posted by davidthefat

But I will bet you C/C++ was used to program that LabView

Deep down, isn't Java just C/C++ code as well? It means squat that LabView is built off of another language. It's still a language.

[EthanMiller]

My opinion is all this contains.

I used Java to program the robot this year. Last year, I used LabVIEW. And to be honest, once each was on the robot, I didn't see any difference in performance. We also didn't get any complaints from the drivers.

I'm probably going to try C++ next year.

I'm not an experienced programmer. I started programming on the TI graphing calculators, with the built-in BASIC-like language. Moving to LabVIEW was something different, and JAVA the same. And I can say - again, my opinion - that for this application, I didn't see that one was particularly better than the other.

I'm probably still going to learn Java and C/C++ for programming for the computer. LabVIEW programs can run on a computer, but that doesn't mean it's inexpensive to do so.

Thus, does being proprietary and costly make a language better or worse? Or does it merely make it more exclusive? And, is exclusivity a bad thing?

And as for LabVIEW not being programming: My opinion is that anything that is compiled into native code and executed on a computer is a programming language. This may not be accurate - I'm in 10th grade and starting programming, so correct me if I'm wrong in that definition - but LabVIEW fits it, and so to me is real programming.

[Robototes2412]

Java is faster than labview

dissassembled, labview code makes random calls that waste cpu cycles. Java code doesn't

[Greg McKaskle]

Bravo Ethan Miller. Very well said. That is the sort of attitude that makes it rewarding to work with FIRST.

Greg McKaskle

[Greg McKaskle]

Java is faster than labview

dissassembled, labview code makes random calls that waste cpu cycles. Java code doesn't

Can you elaborate on what led you to that conclusion? Better yet, do you have benchmarks?

Greg McKaskle