RE: Re (2) : appbuilder
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Forum LabView > i agree that building a cross compiler wouldn't be so easy to > do and not a profitable option > But having to pay for a whole development system is really > expensive as > you already bought it for another platform > > why not just selling an application builder as vi are able to migrate > between platforms (ok with some exceptions, but i won't > digress on this point) this should be more ... fair The problem really is that the application builder only is the linker if you compare it to a traditional compiler/linker environment. The compiler part is built into LabVIEW itself, as the compiled code is necessary independant if you execute your VI in LabVIEW or as executable. Eventhough NI has of course a PPC code generator for their Macintosh version of LabVIEW, making sure that that generator works correct if cross compiled for lets say the x86 target is a very difficult thing to do. The least problematic here would be probably between Windows and Linux as they use basically the same machine code generator. But crossing the CPU boarder is a very tough thing to do. Maybe in LabVIEW 9.0 as Super Professional Developer System ;-) Rolf Kalbermatter CIT Engineering Nederland BVtel: +31 (070) 415 9190 Treubstraat 7H fax: +31 (070) 415 9191 2288 EG Rijswijkhttp://www.citengineering.com Netherlands mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re (2) : appbuilder
i agree that building a cross compiler wouldn't be so easy to do and not a profitable option But having to pay for a whole development system is really expensive as you already bought it for another platform why not just selling an application builder as vi are able to migrate between platforms (ok with some exceptions, but i won't digress on this point) this should be more ... fair >Well it has economical as well as technical reasons. First integrating all >possible cross-compile targets into each LabVIEW version would be technically >possible but would exponentially increase the effort needed to test each new >LabVIEW version before release. >Second NI has IMO a point in saying if you want to do that you need to have >an additional LabVIEW license for the target plattform. Is that unfair? I >don't think so, it is a decision they made and all you can do is reason with >them to change that, but that is it. -- Pascal Luquet Bien Entendu eMail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.BienEntendu.fr
Re (2) : appbuilder
"Infos - Bien Entendu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >this is really unfair from national as VIs can migrate from one platform >to another and embedding VIs in multiples "standalone engine" (one for >each platform) should be quite easy to do. Well it has economical as well as technical reasons. First integrating all possible cross-compile targets into each LabVIEW version would be technically possible but would exponentially increase the effort needed to test each new LabVIEW version before release. Second NI has IMO a point in saying if you want to do that you need to have an additional LabVIEW license for the target plattform. Is that unfair? I don't think so, it is a decision they made and all you can do is reason with them to change that, but that is it. Rolf Kalbermatter CIT Engineering Nederland BVtel: +31 (070) 415 9190 Treubstraat 7H fax: +31 (070) 415 9191 2288 EG Rijswijkhttp://www.citengineering.com Netherlands mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re (2) : appbuilder
>> for exemple i develop on a mac OSX with LV7 an application builder >> what do i need to make it run on windows ? >> > >This ability isn't really there today. EXEs on various Windows are >compatible with one another, but Mac and unix have different binary >standards. To compile one from the other platform is usually called >cross compilation, and LV supports this for RT, but not for desktop OSes. thank you for your answer i wanted to be sure now i am ! this is really unfair from national as VIs can migrate from one platform to another and embedding VIs in multiples "standalone engine" (one for each platform) should be quite easy to do. -- Pascal Luquet Bien Entendu eMail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.BienEntendu.fr
Re: Re (2) : appbuilder
Infos - Bien Entendu wrote: > this is really unfair from national as VIs can migrate from one > platform to another > and embedding VIs in multiples "standalone engine" (one for each > platform) should be quite easy to do. VIs migrate, like other programs, only if they have the source code. Remove the source code, or diagrams, and you can no longer move the VI between platforms because they can no longer be recompiled on the fly into native code. This happens when you build an executable or select "Save With Options" and explicitly choose to remove the diagrams. What you're asking for seems to be a cross compiler that automatically generates code for all supported systems and builds a "fat binary" that can be executed anywhere. You can't do that AND retain the ability to simply execute a file on each platform, since the executable formats will be different and some native handler application will be required to launch the app. This is in addition to the app quadrupling its size. NI have done it in the same way as pretty much everyone else and that's the way I prefer it. -- Dr. Craig Graham, Software Engineer Advanced Analysis and Integration Limited, UK. http://www.aail.co.uk/
