Move Stacked Sequences from the Palette

[Spectre_Dave]

There has been a lot of discussion on this but no LabVIEW Idea (that I was able to find). Please move the Stacked Sequences from the Programming Palette to a "retro" or "classic" palette. This is dissuade novices from overusing them

---

Previous wording:

There has been a lot of discussion on this but no LabVIEW Idea (that I was able to find).

Retain them for legacy code but please remove them from the Programming Palette

Lets vote this in and get rid of Stacked Sequences forever.

I would go so far as to release a patch to remove them from all Installed LabVIEW Versions!

Message Edited by Laura F. on 09-30-2009 03:49 PM

[smercurio_fc]

While I don't use them as a general rule, I would still be strongly opposed to this idea. What are you going to dislike next? Flat sequence structures? Global variables?

There are NO "evil" constructs in programming. Only abusive programmers. 

[johnsold]

I might support moving them (and flat sequences) to an "Advanced" subpalette, but they should not be removed.

Putting them in an Advanced palette will likely keep many of the LV beginners from using them.  By the time someone reaches the level where they are looking for advanced structures and functions, they are less likely to abuse them.

Lynn

[Spectre_Dave]

I disagrre with the "Advanced" subPalette but I would okay putting them in a "Retro" subPallette.

[Jim_Kring]

Ya, maybe we should put the In Place Element Structure there instead 🙂

[crelf]

Yeah - if you changed this idea to "move" instead of "remove" I'd think more seriously about giving it kudos.

smercurio_fc: "There are NO "evil" constructs in programming. Only abusive programmers." <- love it!  I'll kudos that 🙂

[Spectre_Dave]

I asked the Moderator to change the name to move.

I am surprised that so many people are passionate about keeping Stacked Sequences.  I learned on stacked sequences (LV 1.2) because that was all we had but I was an early adopter of the LTR State Machine architecture (LV v3.x?) and I have not looked back. 

The only place I use flat sequences is in my FPGA code.

[Intaris]

I for one am simply pragmatic.

Sometimes it's easier to use a Stacked Sequence than to do it any other way.  Given the choice between deadlines and small design faux-pas, 9 out of 10 customers will choose deadline.

[Spectre_Dave]

I have fully accepted and assimilated  state machines that I NEVER think about stacked sequences.  I simple drop a while loop, add case a structure, add shift registers and put code in the cases - bingo I have a functional state machine.

Now for larger applications I use a QSM but there I have created templates and a polymorphic Queue handler to facilitate reuse.

I can code a simple SM as fast and reliably as you can code a stacked sequence.

[Laura F.]

I've updated the title as requested.

Thanks,

Laura

[crelf]

I see you updated the title, but that's not really what I meant (my fault, I should have been more clear).  What I meant was that I would not consider kudos'ing an idea that removed the structure, but I would consider kudos'ing an idea that moved it from the sutrctures palette to somewhere buried deeper.  You'd need to change the idea verbiage significantly for that - if that's what you want to do, of course.