|
I don't reply to many emails - in fact VERY few, but this one and many of the replies forced me to write something.
Maybe AmiBroker should be more like MetaStock where errors remain for many upgrade cycles ( ie months to a year or more) and NO BETA upgrades ever occur. In the 6 1/2 years I have used AmiBroker Tomasz has provided literally far more than 100 beta versions - FREE of charge, often fixing bugs within a few hours to a couple of days. No other investment software that I know of does this that fast. MetaStock's Enhance Backtester or Optimizer still has included errors in its handling of returns - which in my opinion renders it less than useful for "real" investment work where money is on the line. Enlighten me if I am wrong. Each "one tenth" upgrade for MetaStock costs $99 or more while Tomasz was providing 5 "one tenth" upgrades and MANY betas FREE for about the same price. Checking MetaStock's manual - AmiBroker's is superior. Now I realize this is a comparison with only one other available software package, but others will fail to generate much improved comparisons. I think I would rather still have what AmiBroker provides.
Furthermore Tomasz is a virtual Help file to this message board, although I think he would rather be programing new features for AmiBroker than answering questions here.
Each investment software package has their own programming language. As new features and functions are included into the language, it becomes more difficult to use and understand. The added complexity generates more questions. No other investment software package has generated much in the way of third party reference texts, other the few Tradestation has. Howard Bandy's book is the first of several I foresee for AmiBroker.
Tomasz has been chided for "for failing to provide a 5.1 Manual yet" - geez give the man a chance - he will get it out ASAP. You can't have everything at once - new features are better than a new Manual the day the upgrade comes out. People here on the message board will help your understanding of new features if the Readme file and examples doesn't clear up the problems.
What other investment software package has been created and maintained by one man that rivals the functionality of AmiBroker? AmiBroker is evolving faster than any other package I am familiar with - or am I just wearing "rose-colored" glasses?
I could write more but I think I have made my opinion clear. Yes I want more, but I can be patient - it WILL come.
Regards,
George Loyd
brian_z111 wrote:
There are far too many Help Manual questions posted in this forum.
This takes up our valueable time answering questions that should have
been answered by AmiBroker.
In fact they waste far more time than OT posts.
Our precious time would be far better spent answering more interesting
questions.
Some of the features in AB aren't explained in the manual, some things
are out of date and sometimes the explanations are a bit cryptic.
Example:
Prettify was added to the Formula Editor in beta version 5.04
- included in devlog under version 5.05 Feb08
- official release v5.10 in June08 which includes manual 5.10
Ami website PDF manual is still version 5.00
- Search PDF for prettify == nothing
- Search AB manual version 5.1 for prettify == nothing
- Use AB site search engine == nothing
- Google amibroker.com == 3 hits from devlog
- devlog records release but has no info about it and no explanation in
the read me
- searched KB == nothing
- searched UKB == nothing
The screenshot of the FE edit dropdown menu, in the Help Manual is out
of date (at least it looks different to my version 5.10)
http://www.amibroker.com/guide/w_afledit.html
The Devlog just says that the Prettify function was added ... looked in
the AFL function list and couldn't find anything... is it a function or
a function()?
New features should be explained in the official help manual that comes
out immediately after the beta inclusion.
We should not have to search elsewhere but even if we do we, in this
case, we still find nothing.
It shouldn't be up to volunteers to explain help manual items in this
forum, or the UKB, or anywhere else.
It saves AB some effort if they don't have to keep the manual up to
date but the effort is transferred to the volunteers, who have to
answer it scores of times, instead of AB answering it once.
If we all took the rationalist approach, that some people are
advocating e.g. "users should have skills or lower their sights or pay
Graham", and charged AB for the time we spend providing AB support then
the program would cost thousands of dollars and wouldn't look so cheap,
up against other software, afterall
brian_z
|