contribs) The article says that Jeff Watts, someone involved in LabVIEW, started the article, but has since let it be.Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Aivaliotis ( talk If you visit the mentioned link it is plain to see that it is a clear marketing tactic akin to spamming Wikipedia. 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) Reply I disagree with the above entry The owner of the company that produces this software created and edits this article. 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.
0 kommentar(er)
