@Stel wrote:
The idea of user configurable palettes is a good one for two reasons -
(1) users could set up their preferences to improve their work efficiency, and in this way palettes could be configured specifically for projects, old and new.
(2) newly developed items by NI could be released retrospectively for older versions of LV and added to palettes, so that improved functionality could be added to projects written in older versions without the need to move the entire project to the most current platform
If you're worried about efficiency, you're generally using Quick Drop over the palettes. You're also not likely to be looking at reconfiguring palettes for each project.
Things already can be added to the palette via the user library. You're not creating functionality here. You're also suggesting you think it's in everyone's best interest for development to focus on being retroactive rather than proactive. Personally, I'd prefer NI work on new features and ways to make things easier than worrying about how to implement a new feature into LabVIEW 8.6
@CoastalMaineBird wrote:
It's a bit hypocritical to claim others aren't describing why they hate it well enough to your taste while you offer no reasoning for why you enjoy it.
Call it what you will, but I'm not the one advocating a major change that will break your code. I'm not trying to force you to use it.
But, what is it about the SSS that you find so incredibly useful?
It's not that it's "incredibly useful" - it's just another tool in my toolbox.
I use it a lot in window init code - when a pop up window comes up. I have one here that has 17 frames of init code, then the event loop in frame 18, then 5 frames of shutdown code. Could I do that without it? Sure - there's always another way. But why?
I don't see how someone who doesn't understand the sequence will understand a state machine any better. I use state machines all the time - they're a good way to deal with external devices. But I don't see how it's any simpler to use a while loop with a case structure and some invented enums, rather than a sequence.
Would you have had any problem without them existing?
I suppose not. I could use a while loop with "i" tied to a CASE selector, and a STOP flag of some sort. And have to make sure that when I delete case 3, that I go to the trouble of renumbering case 4, case 5, and the rest. I just don't see how that's an improvement.
Were they necessary for the application you were using or were they just one possible way to do what you wanted, without evaluating whether they would have been more or less efficient than the alternative solutions?
Sure, I evaluated it. It is the best tool for the job in places. Same as the FFT or the FOR loop.
I call it "dogma" because it's often presented, as it has been here, as incontrovertibly true, without any evidence. It's just something one believes.
I'm not advocating for its removal. As you see, I have been on the sidelines for most of this discussion. I'm just suggesting it's hypocritical to stay on a perch telling others how they're wrong for doing exactly what you're doing. One could argue the code is already broken and the change would force a fix. One could also argue the use of SSS is valid. Here, you're presenting something as "invontrovertibly true." But, it's alright because it's your opinion rather than theirs.
I have many tools in my box that go unused, both in coding and in physical toolboxes. I could easily do without many of them. That's why I ask what you find useful. Simply stating "it's another tool" doesn't suggest it has valid use cases. You follow this with a question that really doesn't offer any benefit. I could just as easily as you "why" you choose to use the SSS here instead of the other methods. If it's redundant functionality, the better question is why do both exist? What is the SSS providing you here that you couldn't gain with the other option? If it is offering you no benefit, why are you using it?
I don't believe someone that doesn't understand the SSS will understand the state machine. However, I do believe spending the time to understand how to implement the state machine will mitigate many of the problems experienced by dropping the SSS. The small amount of added difficulty in implementation forces the user to learn something about the structure. This helps push learning versus simply expecting something to work as desired. I didn't suggest the state machine was simpler than the SSS. In fact, I suggested the opposite. But, the overall frustration trying to debug a poorly designed SSS architecture outweighs the frustration putting together a state machine and debugging it as well. It also helps teach better programming.
If you look at a terrible way to replace SSS, I'm sure we'd expect to see this being a pain to deal with. Conversely, I could show a number of examples where SSS's complicate code. Then, I can ask how that's an improvement. I can show where SSS's are useless as the data flow is already enforced and ask how that's an improvement. But, that wouldn't help my point any more than your usage of a terrible replacement helped your point. Even if we used the terrible architecture you suggested to replace this, removing a case would be as simple as wiring through the data and performing zero calcuations. But, why would you ever use this method when you know it'll be difficult to manage the case structure and you could easily implement an enum that would allow you to quickly add/remove cases later? Offer realistic alternatives to the code and it becomes a far more worthwhile comparison.
You call it dogma because you disagree with it and it's easier to use a term in a derogatory manner than to actually present your point in a meaningful way. It has nothing to do with how their view is being presented. You're presenting yours in the same manner. If we dismiss all "dogma," we'd need to dismiss your point of view just as quickly.
Ultimately, your points you've made in this thread are "you can also perform this function with the SSS. Therefore, there's a need for the SSS." That's not the definition of a need. That's the definition of redundancy. You complain about others not articulating their point. Articulate your point. Show me something, anything, that shows there is a valid use for SSS that cannot be handled just as well by another structure.
