![labview alternatives labview alternatives](https://alternative.me/media/512/labview-thumbnail-s9gk5j8hxtlszkj8-c.png)
The person who added this text does NOT work for National Instruments so the statement: "The owner of the company that produces this software created and edits this article." is pure fiction. See also - Baikonur 13:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC) I disagree with the above entry The owner of the company that produces this software created and edits this article.
![labview alternatives labview alternatives](https://windows-cdn.softpedia.com/screenshots/LabVIEW_9.png)
Just put on your user page! - Gobeirne 08:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Īkhay nore ka m3 clear karo - Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.197.221.60 ( talk) 05:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC) Autobiographical Editing/Using Wikipedia for Marketing I've created this userbox for Wikipedians who programme using LabVIEW: shogg -Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.127.246 ( talk) 15:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Userbox
![labview alternatives labview alternatives](https://alternative.me/media/1280/labview-screenshot-s007rb5t17tnzjwr.png)
The acronym originally stood for Laboratory Virtual Instrumentation Engineering Workbench since LabVIEW is used to create virtual instruments (VIs). In any case, as NI attempts to redefine LabVIEW as a general-purpose programming environment, I suspect we'll see the actual definition used less and less. If memory serves, however, LabVIEW 1 actually said "Instrumentation" when the program started. Well, you left out the "V." Corporate documentation seems to use both definitions at times.
![labview alternatives labview alternatives](https://i1.wp.com/mac-cracksoft.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/LabVIEW2018_Python_Fig2.jpg)
Small difference, but a difference nonetheless. This article starts out stating "Laboratory Instrumentation Engineering Workbench" but the book "Learning with LabVIEW 8" says it means "Laboratory Instrument Engineering Workbench". Rgwagner888 ( talk) 14:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC) What does the LabVIEW acronym really mean? This section should be removed unless it can be shown that there is an argument for textual vs. In addition the referenced sources do not support the criticism that it is non-textual. In the criticisms section, the criticism that LabVIEW is non-textual contains a circular argument and does not make sense. Should there even be a criticisms section if the only criticisms listed were made irrelevant years ago? I'm hesitant to just remove the paragraph since I know that criticisms about programming languages can be heated discussions and it'd be better if there was some consensus first. The paragraph itself lists a couple of criticisms and then, immediately, points out that they no longer apply to the language as of the 8.x versions (long since released by now). The only reference I can see there is an article from 2006. However, I don't think this really belongs in the article anyway. First off, I don't think this applies to "copyright" so it should, probably, get it's own section if it's going to stay. Under the "Copyright" section, there is an additional paragraph that discusses criticisms of the language.