Functional global set as reentrant vi in CLD sample?

[Darin.K]

---

@Ben wrote:

---

@altenbach wrote:

....

 No program is completely error free! A program 😮 without bugs does not exist, it's a myth!

---

See myth below

Ben

---

I believe 'World' should be capitalized. 

[JÞB]

Certainly the example provided is worthy of criticism!  I once looked up where they get those example solutions and to my surprise and amazement found that there is good evidence that they are sourced from real submissions to retired exams.

In some ways this makes sense-

• Demonstrates the grading standard
• sets a more realistic expectation in the user preparing for certification 
• The "Mistakes" and "Could be done betters" offer points that provoke critical thought about design ideas (and even generate threads with interesting details about the IDE)

The CLD logo doesn't mean we are perfect!  (we'll not me anyhow) but does demonstrate some familiarity and skill. 

That said: Stupid design choice- the author got lucky that choice didn't bite him.

[Ben]

---

@Darin.K wrote:

---

@Ben wrote:

---

@altenbach wrote:

....

 No program is completely error free! A program 😮 without bugs does not exist, it's a myth!

---

See myth below

Ben

---

I believe 'World' should be capitalized. 

---

Oh bother!

Do you know how long it took me to spell that right?

I'll attempt an elegant recovery by saying, "I was working from a different spec."

Ben

[JÞB]

---

@Ben wrote:

---

@altenbach wrote:

....

 No program is completely error free! A program 😮 without bugs does not exist, it's a myth!

---

See myth below

Ben

---

-10 pt for style

Meaningful:

Icon?

VI Name?

Control/ Indicator Label?

VI Documentation?

Tsk Tsk Ben

[altenbach]

Thinking more about the grading, I definitely would have failed that submission. The use of a wrong non-default execution setting points to a basic misunderstanding that requires a trip back to the classroom. The student will have no problems passing the re-test at a later time. No CLD should make that mistake.

[Darin.K]

Unscrupulous electricians are trained to make the wiring in the main panel very neat and tidy.  Why would they spend so much time and effort doing this?  When the inspector comes and sees the clean wiring he is much less inclined to climb into the attic and check for overloading of a junction box.  Somehow people start to equate neatness with correctness.

It seems at least 75% of the CLD grading is based on neatness and style.  Haven't seen the code, but as long as the wires heading into the abomination of a subVI are straight, everything should be ok, right?

I'd fail this test seven times a week and twice on Sunday, but at least I believe the code would work....

[Ben]

Well I was never trained but I do make the Service Entrance as neat as possible just so I can figure it out latter.

Neatness = Correctness

Sea story time

When studying for my E-phys degree I had EE labs that required notebooks that where graded. After realizing we made a mistake my lab partner and I realized the Grad student was not actually checking our work. So being scientists at heart (he was E-Phys as well), we made an entry in the next weeks log saying ".and in summary we believe that nobody actually reads what we write in this log book." It came back to us unnoticed.

Set Sea story off.

As humans we loose interest in perfection quickly. When walking down the sidewalk our eyes are drawn to the cracks and not the regularly placed expansion joints.

The Monna Lisa by Leonardo has a twisted smile being both a smile and a frown.

So one of the suggestions I pass on to my rookies when they are delivering code for review and acceptance by the customer is "Include an obvious but easy to fix flaw." Cutomers always assume there is SOMETHING wrong and they will keep looking until they find them. So don't make them work to hard and make it easy to find the flaw.

Ben

[altenbach]

---

@Ben wrote:

---

@altenbach wrote:

....

 No program is completely error free! A program 😮 without bugs does not exist, it's a myth!

---

See myth below

---

This is not LabVIEW code, just an image. Maybe you made the entire thing in photoshop, pixel-by-pixel.

Assuming it is a LabVIEW program, we still cannot tell much:

• Is the diagram constant sized to the text or does it contain the collected works of Shakespeare outside the visible area?
• What is the display setting of the string indicator ("password" maybe?)
• Maybe the string indicator has text and background color set the same?
• Maybe the text color is not suitable for users that are colorblind?
• The string is only correct in english speaking areas: missing internationalization.
• It was written, and is running in LabVIEW, which has known and unkown bugs in any version.
• LabVIEW is running on an OS which has known and unkown bugs in any version.

I would not trust it at all! 😄

[SteveChandler]

---

@Ben wrote:

---

@altenbach wrote:

....

 No program is completely error free! A program 😮 without bugs does not exist, it's a myth!

---

See myth below

Ben

---

Will that open in LabVIEW version 4.0? If not it is a bug!

[tbob]

If I had to take the CLD exam again, I would not want any of you people to be grading it.