You mean we could actually get rid of Labview as an option?

What are you talking about? Proprietary graphical languages are for sure a better way to teach our students than simple scripting languages known for their ease of use and high readability that are extremely common in industry.

I’d be down for some robots programmed in Modkit.

So, for our realtime motion control system, we want to get rid of the one language out of three that’s actually widely used for professional realtime motion control systems?

I’d like to get rid of the one that is touted as the “easiest for newbies” but then has almost no support at events because less than 25% of teams use it.

Also, both Java and C++ are also used in the robotics world.

Who on Earth would think that ditching LabVIEW as an option would be a positive change?

Right, which is why I’ve found so many job postings asking for LabView and not C, C++, or MatLab.,-Inc./jobs/Electrical-Control-Engineer-845c839e20b0695f?sjdu=QwrRXKrqZ3CNX5W-O9jEvaBm610KoNspt2sA_PoCTEc_0IMHFzCofxDMvxMbizKgAGBTrdKKvrR9a6p3WPZ3xBvnPIShWmK3RhFtOmorRq0&tk=1crt1m3ft5sp9803&vjs=3

In the same vein, I could search indeed for jobs in FORTRAN or COBOL, but that doesn’t mean we should be teaching high schoolers those languages.

I saw some great labview debate in this thread and it made me wonder if there’s a correlation between programming language and robot performance. Has anyone tried to measure this? I have a lot of anecdotes, but it’d be great to see more data about it.

Remind me again of your credentials “in industry?”

LabVIEW is used in modern industry and is frequently applied in industrial and automation engineering fields. Same with similar environments from competitors, such as RSLogix.

Ideally the teams that use languages that aren’t officially supporter are better on average, because they’re risking getting no help from CSAs at an event. I would be surprised if there was any meaningful difference between the languages that are officially supported though, as there are high, middle, and low end teams that use each

De-anonymize this and I’ll dive right in.

Taking a risk has no bearing on whether you’ll perform well or not.

The willingness to take what others perceive as a risk may be correlated with higher performance. Causal? Nah, probably not.

I see you’ve heard of us.

Its more that I think the teams who do choose to take risks would be more likely to be higher quality teams. It obviously wouldn’t be 1:1, but as a whole, I would assume performance increases when teams take big, team-changing risks, like choosing a coding language when it’s known to be unsupported by FIRST.

Is there a labview team that has been known for their great autonomous programs?

Serious question. I have no idea.

Teams using a unsupported language are naturally going to fall into two performance camps: really good and really awful. The really good ones have the in-house skill and processes to make it work. The really awful ones Dunning-Krugered themselves, and will hopefully realize mistakes were made and change back to a supported language in time.

In supported languages, you’re probably going to see more of a bell curve.

If I’m not mistaken, 2468 used Labview for their multi-cube auton last season. I went to a conference presentation on it in Houston.

There’s asmall list of teams who use the most popular unsupported language, Python

Most aren’t particularly good.

In Ontario if you run labview you essentially are running a unsupported language. AFAIK none of our CSAs know Labview. If your an ONT CSA and you do know Labview please let me know. Telling rookie teams that no one can help them sucks.