Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #24710
| From | Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.arch.embedded, comp.dsp |
| Subject | Re: Labview vs. C++ |
| Date | 2016-07-26 10:29 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <nn7val$1v8$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <0_6dnR9yeqhRkg3KnZ2dnUU7-U8AAAAA@giganews.com> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
Tim Wescott wrote: > OK. Neither of the groups to which I'm cross-posting this are > appropriate. > > But, y'all are smart, and I know who to listen to. > > Problem: I'm working on a proposal for a customer, for an app that's > going to require heavy computation and is more or less real time*. The > guy I'll be working with the closest is pretty much a 100% LabView > programmer -- he just doesn't _do_ C, or C++, or Fortran. > > The customer wants me to deliver them an algorithm, to which they'll > write code. They're pretty firm (for good reason) on wanting to do the > code in-house, or with local talent. I'm trying to decide how hard I > need to push, early on, for the computationally intensive bits to be done > in C++. > > I just Googled, and didn't find any good references on the relative > speeds of doing things in some compiled language vs. Labview. If the > ratio is similar to what you get in Scilab or Matlab, then they need to > go with C++. > > So -- anyone know? Any comments? > > Thanks. > > * It's not 100% hard real time, with an "exceed and you die" sort of > deadline, but after the nominal deadline the slope of the user-crankiness > vs. delay curve is pretty steep. Moreover, while _occasional_ delays > could be tolerated, if the computer just can't keep up then the delays > will grow ever longer -- and the user ever crankier -- with time. > I once worked a few weeks of a summer for a guy who tried to use a 40-horse Ford to move big sandstone rocks. I had one conversation with him about the sound of the hydraulics popping, and made it clear I'd keep a minimum safe distance while he was doing that. LabView claims to have some flavor of CUDA support. So there's that. -- Les Cargill
Back to comp.arch.embedded | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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