Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #24680

Re: Labview vs. C++

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Tim Wescott  <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 00:17:30 +0000, Steve Pope wrote:

>> Tim Wescott  <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> wrote:

>>> I'm trying to decide how hard I need to push, early on, for the
>>> computationally intensive bits to be done in C++.

>> I would say, not at all, unless you think your failure to steer them on
>> the issue might cause the project to collapse and negatively impact your
>> future revenues; but even in this scenario you do not want to directly
>> challenge their internal technical approach.

>My job is to point them in the direction of success.  If that means that 
>using the computing language they're comfortable with won't lead to 
>success, then I need to point that out to them -- even if they don't like 
>it.  I won't beat them with a stick, but they need to understand.

>> I would recommend proposing to include a C++ program among your
>> deliverables to them, so that they have a reference implementation. You
>> may also want to propose a certain number of your hours as post-delivery
>> support.

>They specifically don't want to pay for that -- there will be a Scilab 
>program, but that has run-times roughly comparable to Labview.

I have run into analogous situations where the customr wants me
to deliver an algorithm, but does not want even sample code as
this means (in their thinking) that they are paying for coding it twice.
So all they get is a paper design.  (Even though I have coded
it up anyway.)

The customer is always right. :-)


Steve

Back to comp.arch.embedded | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Labview vs. C++ Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2016-07-20 18:57 -0500
  Re: Labview vs. C++ spope33@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) - 2016-07-21 00:17 +0000
    Re: Labview vs. C++ Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2016-07-21 12:30 -0500
      Re: Labview vs. C++ spope33@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) - 2016-07-21 18:01 +0000
      Re: Labview vs. C++ Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-21 12:13 -0700
        Re: Labview vs. C++ Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2016-07-21 16:50 -0500
      Re: Labview vs. C++ eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) - 2016-07-21 20:25 +0000
  Re: Labview vs. C++ jim.brakefield@ieee.org - 2016-07-20 19:11 -0700
  Re: Labview vs. C++ Marcel Mueller <news.5.maazl@spamgourmet.org> - 2016-07-21 07:37 +0200
    Re: Labview vs. C++ "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> - 2016-07-21 01:20 -0500
      Re: Labview vs. C++ Jack <jack4747@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 07:11 -0700
        Re: Labview vs. C++ George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2016-07-22 02:23 -0400
    Re: Labview vs. C++ Jack <jack4747@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 07:08 -0700
  Re: Labview vs. C++ Jack <jack4747@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 07:18 -0700
    Re: Labview vs. C++ Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2016-07-21 12:37 -0500
      Re: Labview vs. C++ John Speth <johnspeth@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-21 11:22 -0700
      Re: Labview vs. C++ pippo2@disney.com (Jack) - 2016-07-21 23:38 +0200
  Re: Labview vs. C++ Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-07-26 10:29 -0500
  Re: Labview vs. C++ Paul Colin de Gloucester <Gloucester@nicht.At> - 2016-08-12 19:59 +0200
  Re: Labview vs. C++ Mike Smith <email@domain.com> - 2016-09-07 20:54 +0100

csiph-web