Good message I have seen on LinkedIN..

[Ray.R]

 

[AnalogKid2DigitalMan]

Ray:

i.e. MacGyver? 🙂

-AK2DM

[altenbach]

Some people are both. 😄

[SnowMule]

What about professional amateurs? 😄

[Ray.R]

There's always professional amateur night..  LOL!  😄

MG....  maybe... It enhanced seeing that message in LinkedIn.. 

[JÞB]

Hmmm maybe it is time to start that other discussion. 

Spoiler

No need to sweat the reference if you are not familliar with it.  I'd rather let that exchange lie.

Its no surprise that LabVIEW was an accidentally needed suplemental skill that, had the HM known more about, he probably would have asked entirely different questions in the interview.  The interview did discuss test automation but, I didn't even know LabVIEW existed.  I probably should have never gotten that offer!

Luckilly, the rest of the team was so completely incompetent it makes the worst of what you see from the newbies posting to the forums look good.  There was the help back then but Examples? Forums? (I believe NI.com hardly even mentioned disscussion forums back then- they were just starting) We had no choice but to wing-it and learn "on the fly."  We crashed Often!  We did hire a guy that had some formal training (That training must have gone through a lot of upgrading since then too) but, wow we put some ugly code on the network!  With no SCC either!

Painful lesson after painful lesson we learned what we were doing wrong and eventually put together a pretty good system.  In fact, two of us now are Aliance Partners (and Champions) and focus on showing others how to do LabVIEW right.  Not bad for a couple of MacGyvers.  The overlap of the skills we had prior to figuring out LabVIEW is a nice boost to bringing in  clients.

My point- LabVIEW "As an accident" is not really a bad thing-  It helps to have other related skills.

[Ray.R]

Hi Jeff,

---

@JÞB wrote:

Luckilly, the rest of the team was so completely incompetent it makes the worst of what you see from the newbies posting to the forums look good.  There was the help back then but Examples? Forums? (I believe NI.com hardly even mentioned disscussion forums back then- they were just starting) We had no choice but to wing-it and learn "on the fly."  We crashed Often!  We did hire a guy that had some formal training (That training must have gone through a lot of upgrading since then too) but, wow we put some ugly code on the network!  With no SCC either!

Painful lesson after painful lesson we learned what we were doing wrong and eventually put together a pretty good system.

---

Are you saying that this is good and that we should recommend this?  

Spoiler

really??

Spoiler

If so, when will non-LabVIEW programmers ever respect LabVIEW programmers? 

[Intaris]

Of course there are lots of programmers of LabVIEW out there who started "humbly" and there's nothing wrong with that as long as they take time and effort to hone their skills.  Unlike C++, this IS a valid (although perhaps not most efficient) way to learn LabVIEW.  And I don't think any of us are saying we should promote doing things that way.

Do you remember what life was like without the NI forums?  For me personally, the activity in the forums dragged me from exactly the same place Jeff is describing.  So I don't get the problems here Ray.  Software engineering and SCC in combination with LV are still relatively new topics.  Sure, there are a group of people who have always approached LV with a professional mindset and good on them.  But a lot of us (myself included) started off in a much different place than where we are today.  To try to brush that under the carpet is a huge disservice to anybody else out there attempting to go through the same trials and tribulations.

Non-labVIEW programmers will respect LabVIEW programmers whenever they want to.  I couldn't care less to be honest.  Do you really feel that Jeff's honesty is affecting that somehow?

LV has grown greatly in the last years as has our ability to code with it.  But don't forget where LV has come from.  People like Jeff any myself are the reasons why LV is financially viable.  And I think Jeff would join me in hoping that more and more make the switch to being serious programmers.

Shane

[Ray.R]

Hi Shane,

I came from the same background as well..  I fully understand what you are saying.  I am not saying that it is bad.  Maybe I am not expressing myself well.. 😞

I do aspire to becoming better & better at programming with LabVIEW.  I still have a long way to go (or so it seems).  With & without formal training.

I do understand the mission from NI to make LabVIEW accessible to everyone.

This thread came from several sources:  

1)  mention of MacGiver:  I did watch that tv series as a kid.  It's full of "Hollywoodness"..  To someone mildly technical, his solutions made no sense...  But maybe in a life or death matter, it prevails to put anything together in the hopes of getting out of the situation alive.  In reality, it would likely cause more harm than anything else.  Would I ever want to work with or hire a MacGiver?  no.  And as I mentionned in another thread, it depends E-N-T-I-R-E-L-Y on how someone defines a "MacGiver".  So if MacGiver is your hero and you saw that character (not a person... a fictional character... that never existed) as clever and able to deal with any situation, then maybe I can understand why you would compare someone with that.  I prefer facts over fiction.  I do like sci-fi, but I know the difference between fantasy and reality.

2)  LinkedIn... the 1st post in this thread:  I did see that image posted by someone on LinkedIn.  I though...  "Gee..  That is so true"..  A lot of my business stems from projects which were pieced together by someone who never designed any type of code.  I deal with this very often...  And it DOES code more to the customer because they end up having to hire someone else to fix or re-write the code that was poorly done.  It's also a fact.  If I posted a lie, then please enlighten me and I will ask NI to delete this thread.

3)  past experience...  same at #2 above..

I feel I am digging my own grave with this topic.  It's sad to think that aiming for good programming skill is seen as something bad.  I should ask NI to delete this thread.

PS:  Hollywoodness is not a word.  I know that.  But it is how I decided to express myself. 

[JÞB]

WOW,  and I was afraid this might cause some flames.

No Ray, I am not setting forth my path as any sort of ideal best practice if you want to get good at LabVIEW.  In fact,  the painful lessons I learned along the way are in no small way related to my choice to work how and where I do, my choice to engage heavilly on the forums, and my choice to proudly display my shield and challice.  I am the king of "Don't do that"- you'll regret it!  Training (and certification) are tremendous assets that no developer or employer should remain ignorant about.  The on-line courses remove just about any excuse for the total "MacGyver" Developers. 

Ah, the next generation allways seems to have it so easy!

I do want to chime in on one point Shane made.  I do agree that many LabVIEW develo[pers should be encouraged to "Build this- not That."  I'm all on board with the "Rebranding" NI has been doing for the last few years.  New and improved training, a huge expendature to revamp examples,  PROJECT Templates (I can't say enough about how well those were done and documented)

Unfortunately there is some truth in one of my quips I use when doing some of those championy things.  "Its easier to teach a Software engineer LabVIEW development than teaching a LabVIEW developer software engineering"

Now if we could just get some instrument drivers cleaned up-  oh well something to aim for I guess.