Re : Re: Some doubtful questions in LabVIEW Fundamentals Exam

[johnsold]

However, DAQmx and DAQ Assistant questions are NOT relevant to the  LabVIEW Fundamentals Exam (or any other level of LV certification) because they are not available for two of the three platforms on which LV runs.  The DAQ resolution questions are relevant.

Lynn 

[smercurio_fc]

---

vt92 wrote:
 

In my opinion, these DAQ questions are reasonably easy and, more importantly, pertinent to being a good LabVIEW programmer.

---

I disagree quite wholeheartedly. Just because one does not do DAQ does not mean that one is not a good LabVIEW programmer. Technically, LabVIEW has nothing to do with DAQ. A good LabVIEW programmer is someone who can design efficient code and knows good software-design principles, not someone who knows how to read a voltage from a DAQ card. That's one of the reasons why I've never taken these tests. The other reason is that most of the questions on these tests don't test one's ability/knowledge in software design principles. 

[vt92]

---

smercurio_fc wrote:

---

vt92 wrote:
 

In my opinion, these DAQ questions are reasonably easy and, more importantly, pertinent to being a good LabVIEW programmer.

---

I disagree quite wholeheartedly. Just because one does not do DAQ does not mean that one is not a good LabVIEW programmer. Technically, LabVIEW has nothing to do with DAQ. A good LabVIEW programmer is someone who can design efficient code and knows good software-design principles, not someone who knows how to read a voltage from a DAQ card. That's one of the reasons why I've never taken these tests. The other reason is that most of the questions on these tests don't test one's ability/knowledge in software design principles. 

---

I can understand your point.  The intent of my comments was to point out the truly ridiculous nature of some of the other questions.  

[smercurio_fc]

---

vt92 wrote:
I can understand your point.  The intent of my comments was to point out the truly ridiculous nature of some of the other questions.  

---

On that I definitely agree.

[Intaris]

I think we can try to aim for a record consensus on that point....

How many users can we get to agree on the immensely silly nature of some of the LV fundamental Qs?

Shane.

[Ben]

[Set RantMode= True] 

With 33+ years experience with computers and electronics and over 10 years with LV, those test scare the hell out of me! If I take the results seriously, I am not qualified to do my job. Like many of the NI tests they test our ability to guess was the writter was thinking when they wrote it.

While waiting for an NITS to start NI was using the test to entertain and test the crowd. Before it was over I was standing up and doing a lecture on how cooercion dots do NOT imply a buffer copy...

Maybe if we all sat thru the 90 crash course on how to become an AE we may get exposed to the ideas behind the Qs but real world experience is of little help.

[Set RantMode = False]

So point a count on the borad in my behalf!

Ben

[LV_Pro]

Developing test of complex subjects is a specialized field in the education world. In the case of the various LabVIEW tests, there have been problems since the beginning. I took a live, online, "training" session for the CLD when it first came out, spent several minutes chatting with the instructor on how some of the questions back then were wrong or ambiguous. One problem I have with the whole exam process it that it doesn't, for the most part, prove that you are competent at actually doing something useful using LabVIEW. I liken it to someone that has good grammar and spelling. Does that mean they can write a book, poem, etc. Or more to the point, can they write a book explaining some process, say stellar evolution? Unless they are knowledgeable in astrophysics, probably not. Similarly knowing how to use a event structure, whether a FOR loop has autodecrement for an attached array, etc., doesn't imply that there is an ability to "use" LabVIEW. I don't know about everyone using LabVIEW but with <rant> 40+ years experience in electronics, 17 years using LabVIEW to earn a living, I rarely get to use LabVIEW for purely programming applications, do not recall in the 13+ years I have been a mercenary (consultant) LabVIEW specialized Electrical Engineer, any prospective client purely interested in my LabVIEW knowledge, with a couple of exceptions. In those cases even "technical" programmers (we were doing data acquistion) were viewed as "IT" people, until I was able to convince those in "power" that they wanted people with "subject area knowledge" that programmed in LabVIEW. Any computer language can be learned, acquiring subject area knowledge is frequently more difficult. I should know, I have been developing test programs for a very long time, using a wide variety of languages, until I pretty much settled on LabVIEW. Remember the history of LabVIEW. At its inception it was a way for Engineers and Scientists to whip up quick programs, to acquire data automatically, usually via GPIB (one of NI's first products was a GPIB card for the early  PC's and Macs). So to stress the programming aspect, particularly in the CLD/CLA level exams, to the exclusion of how one might actually get data into the program I think dilutes the value of the certifications even more than the existing flawed exams do. </rant>

So there, you young whipper snappers!!

[Ben]

---

LV_Pro wrote:

... but with <rant> 40+ years experience in electronics, 17 years using LabVIEW to earn a living, ...</rant>

So there, you young whipper snappers!!

---

"40+" !

You must have already been working when I was still experimenting with frogs* and toy train transformers!

So....

waht did you guys use for a voltage reference back then before the zener was invented?

Let me guess... a chemical cell?

Ben

* One of my eye opening moments was when a frog with alagator clips attached to its leg and hip showed me the difference between AC and DC. No I was not being cruel (on purpose!). I was trying to duplicate an experiment by Galvani.

[johnsold]

The Weston saturated cell.  1.0186 V.  The Josephson junction replaced arrays of standard cells as the reference for the volt in 1972.

Lynn 

[altenbach]

---

Ben wrote:

You must have already been working when I was still experimenting with frogs* and toy train transformers!

---

Trilobites predate Teddy Bears (Ursus spelaeus).