Nobody should write programs like that. That would not pass code review in a serious LabVIEW team.
> Yeah to be fair, LabVIEW is the absolute worst graphical programming system.
That's a strong statement. I am unaware of any visual programming environment as powerful as LabVIEW. Nothing is close. LabVIEW has several features over text-base languages as well.
However, I am a strong critic of LabVIEW, but not for the reasons you list. The UX could definitely be improved, and this is something I'm looking into.
NI did embark on the LabVIEW NXG (next-generation) project but boggled it. It is tough. LabVIEW is thirty something years old. The only remaining product from the NXG endeavor is the LabVIEW NXG Web Module. There were some improvements but there could have been more. It failed due to mismanagement.
I tend to separate LV into the language and its graphical representation. The language is highly optimized dataflow programming with extensive hardware libraries for data acquisition and control. If your problem lends itself to a performant dataflow solution, LV is worth checking out. The machine that discovered the Higgs Boson was programmed in a custom LabVIEW.
There's a belief that LV is easy for novices to learn, such as test technicians and engineers. Interestingly, the other easy "language for the rest of us," Excel, is also a dataflow programming environment.
The graphical "language" was introduced for the Apple Mac II at a time when there was a lot of excitement for "graphical everything," and again a view that the graphical flow chart would make it intuitive for non-programming engineers. The simplest LV programs had an almost 1:1 correspondence to things that were familiar in test hardware such as knobs, switches, meters, and so forth.
Now my main critique is the sheer physical labor required to write and edit programs. This could actually lead to sloppy code, if it's too painful to refactor things. I think that if there were a good text based dataflow language, and LV adopted it, the graphical language would fall into much more limited use (e.g., for adding user interfaces to programs). That's just my hunch.
> Yeah to be fair, LabVIEW is the absolute worst graphical programming system.
That's a strong statement. I am unaware of any visual programming environment as powerful as LabVIEW. Nothing is close. LabVIEW has several features over text-base languages as well.
However, I am a strong critic of LabVIEW, but not for the reasons you list. The UX could definitely be improved, and this is something I'm looking into.
NI did embark on the LabVIEW NXG (next-generation) project but boggled it. It is tough. LabVIEW is thirty something years old. The only remaining product from the NXG endeavor is the LabVIEW NXG Web Module. There were some improvements but there could have been more. It failed due to mismanagement.