|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
This discussion is highly egotical and very strange. Waste of time. Bottom line: I think we are all traders here, and some are also developers. I am not a developer, just a trader. I used Metastock, SuperCharts, Tradestation and Wealthlab in the past; especially Tradestation so called-"EasyLanguage". I can just testify how much more easy-to-use and fast is AFL - I have never struggled to put into an AFL a trading idea I had. And again I am a trader, not a programmer. I looks like this discussion is a developer discussion.
Carl
--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ronald Davis <xokie7@xxx> wrote:
>
> TJ>Especially the feedback from ordinary person, from the beginner and from anybody else
>
> This is Ron Davis aka "ordinary person and anybody else".
>
> I think TJ is so good, he could change the ADK so that Plug ins could access the fabulous array processing within Amibroker.
>
> I want a plug in, but I don't want anyone to see my AFL smoothing codes.
>
> With an ADK that accesses arrays, I could then hire a programmer to make an empty plug in, and then I could place my smoothing
> AFL codes in it.
>
> I have attached a chart IXC to show thest chart lines. Ron D, aka ordinary person.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Tomasz Janeczko <groups@xxx>
> To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Sat, January 9, 2010 8:09:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [amibroker] A computer science related question on the AFL Language
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> > I use your product because it is one of the few that offer decent
> built in drawing capabilities (pixel level)
> Oh really? I thought that every language has pixel level drawing, isn't
> it ?
>
> With regards to "some positive attributes" that you mention you surely
> mean your great sentence that says "AFL is a deeply flawed language".
> In my understanding is plain unjustified bashing nothing more.
>
> And you are once again wrong in your conclusion. I appreciate the
> feedback.
> Especially the feedback from ordinary person,
> from the beginner and from anybody else with one exception.
> With exception to persons who claim in first sentence that they work
> for multi-billion-dollar institutions. It is pathetic. If somebody
> starts with something like that he/she automatically loses all
> credibility in my eyes.
>
> Best regards,
> Tomasz Janeczko
> amibroker.com
>
> On 2010-01-10 02:44, Potato Soup wrote:
> >
> >A very simple question to answer. I use your product because it
> >is one of the few that offer decent built in drawing capabilities
> >(pixel level). How much money I or my employers have is largely
> >irrelevant, all tools are considered for the job.
> >
> >>I'm sorry that you don't want to take some constructive criticism from
> >other people in the field. That is unfortunate for your customers. I,
> >nor anyone else has suggested that you failed in your original
> >endeavor, or that AB/AFL is unworthy of any recognition. If you re-read
> >my original posts you'll see that I mention that it has some positive
> >attributes. But if you expect everyone to blindly praise you and
> >suppress constructive criticism or advice than you will be
> >disappointed. The best software takes the best ideas from everyone and
> >synthesizes them together. I still have hope that AB can someday be the
> >best.
> >
> >>Cheers.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ________________________________
> From: >Tomasz Janeczko <groups@xxx>
> >To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Sent: Sat, January 9,
> >2010 8:37:17 PM
> >Subject: Re:
> >[amibroker] A computer science related question on the AFL Language
> >
> >
> >
> >>Hello,
> >
> >>If you are so great and working for all those multi-billion
> >institutions I am wondering what are you doing here,
> >>using so cheap and "flawed" system as you wrote in your original post.
> >Surely for that amount of money that you have in hand
> >>you could hire best programmers in the world and write your own
> >super-trouper language and all that stuff.
> >
> >>So please give me a break. I wrote AFL for myself back in 1995 because
> >I need tool for my own purposes. I decided to offer it for others and
> >some people liked it. That's whole story. If you do not like it then
> >search elsewhere or write your own for your multi-billion institution.
> >And no thanks I do not need your advice.
> >
> >>Best regards,
> >>Tomasz Janeczko
> >amibroker.com
> >
> >>On 2010-01-10 02:24, Potato Soup wrote:
> >
> > Sorry for adding my "twisted" opinion, which only has
> >>experience
> >>building trading systems for multi-billion dollar institutions.
> >>
> >>>>And Python's math modules that are implemented in Fortran and C are not
> >>"slow" In fact there are Python math implementations that run on GPUs.
> >>Python as a language can be optimized to be as fast as anything.
> >>
> >>>>I'm more than happy to offer help if the AB author needs assistance
> >>adopting more modern and "twisted" technologies. My goal in offering
> >>the feedback was to help improve the product.
> >>
> >>>>Cheers.
> >>________________________________
>
> >>From: Tomasz Janeczko <groups@xxx>
> >>Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 02:17:31 +0100
> >>To: <amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>Subject: Re: [amibroker] A computer science related
> >>question on the AFL Language
> >>
> >>
> >>Hello,
> >>
> >>>>Precisely.
> >>
> >>>>AFL is designed to be able to express trading system rules / indicators
> >>in easy and short form and to be fast. That's all. It is intended to be
> >>easy to use and fast thanks to array processing that general-purpose
> >>languages lack. Just compare Traders Tips formulas published on S&C
> >>site for various platforms (some of them using so called "standard"
> >>laguages) and you will quickly find which formula is the shortest and
> >>easiest to understand. That speaks for itself and has more weight that
> >>sombody's twisted opinion.
> >>
> >>>>If one wants full blown C++ - one can use it - just write your code in
> >>C++, compile it as a plugin and that's it.
> >>
> >>>>Python/Lua and all that stuff are slow compared to AFL array
> >>processing. And as far as object-oriented programming is considered,
> >>most people are not comfortable with it (and belive it or not but most
> >>people are NOT programmers). I can tell that because I hear a lot of
> >>feedback from users.
> >>
> >>>>Best regards,
> >>>>Tomasz Janeczko
> >>>>amibroker.com
> >>
> >>>>On 2010-01-09 14:57, Prashanth wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Its not a
> >>>question
> >>>of whether it can be improved or not. Its a question of how user
> >>>friendly it is. Most traders are not programmers and hence complex
> >>>coding is out of question for vast majority. Its this group that
> >>>appreciates the easiness of coding in AFL as compared to other
> >>>languages which may hold more potential but can be much more difficult
> >>>to learn.
> >>>
> >>>I believe TJ has
> >>>simpliefied as much as possible and maybe during that simplification
> >>>process, there were some sacrifices that were done. Unless one is a
> >>>hard core programmer, I feel AFL more than meets every specification.
> >>>For those who like to use more tools, ADK is always there to use and
> >>>create outside of AB what they desire to achieve.
> >>>
> >>>Cheers
> >>>
> >>>Prashanth
> >>>
> >>>-----
> >>>>Original
> >>>>Message
> >>>>-----
> >>>>From: Potato Soup
> >>>>To: AmiBroker (Discussion List)
> >>>>Sent: >>>>Saturday, January 09, 2010 19:15 PM
> >>>>Subject: >>>>Re: [amibroker] A computer science related question on the AFL Language
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Why design one when Python is free, as is Lua, Squirrel and other easy
> >>>>scripting languages? I have built many trading systems for hedge funds
> >>>>and big banks. Never once considered building a language with it.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>Sounds like you think AFL can't be improved? From a language
> >>>>perspective AFL has some good ideas and concepts but uneven execution.
> >>>>A lot of things feel incrementally added, whether they were or not I
> >>>>don't know.
> >>>>________________________________
>
> >>>>From: "J Paul Buffon" <jbuffon1@xxx>
> >>>>Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 08:34:37 -0500
> >>>>To: <amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>Subject: RE: [amibroker] A computer science
> >>>>related
> >>>>question on the AFL Language
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Well,
> >>>>you
> >>>>should
> >>>>design one! As far as I am concerned, elegant and great
> >>>>price/quality ratio, the best in the market in that bracket. Part of my
> >>>>tool box and achieved north of 70% last year with it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>JP
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>From:amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >>>>
> >>>> On
> >>>>Behalf Of Potato Soup
> >>>>Sent: 01/09/2010 8:24 AM
> >>>>To: AmiBroker (Discussion List)
> >>>>Subject: Re: [amibroker] A computer science related
> >>>>question
> >>>>on the AFL Language
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>AFL is an imperative language
> >>>>primarily with a dose of vector processing features that enable the
> >>>>terseness that you talk about. I would not describe it as an OO
> >>>>language in any way, just because it has OO bindings or provides access
> >>>>to objects. If you can not write an object then the OO syntax
> >>>>introduced in the backtester is syntactic sugar at best. I also
> >>>>wouldn't say it has anywhere near the power of C or C++ just because it
> >>>>offers some syntax similarities. Those languages derive their power
> >>>>mainly from their ability to access memory directly, and at the OS'
> >>>>discretion this means writing directly to hardware memory maps. Of
> >>>>course C++ takes things much further. But AFL doesn't give you anywhere
> >>>>the expressive data structure creation abilities that a true imperative
> >>>>or OO language would.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>Personally I feel AFL is a deeply flawed language that mixes constructs
> >>>>from Basic and C at very superficial levels. It provides its power from
> >>>>underneath the hood, not at the true language level.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>I would pay a lot of money for AB with Python as its language, using
> >>>>NumPy as the fast math and numerical processing underpinning.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>This is not to say that AFL doesn't have elegant concepts or
> >>>>advantages. It is just not a well designed language from the ground up.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>From: "cascade3891" <cascade3891@xxx>
> >>>>>>>>Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 08:26:59
> >>>>>>>>To: <amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>>Subject: [amibroker] A computer science related question on the AFL
> >>>>Language
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>Hi Amibroker community,
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>I have specific questions about the AFL language, regarding where it
> >>>>stands within the computer language spectrum(s) and what effect that
> >>>>has on speed/performance, agility and modularity as well as its
> >>>>accuracy for readability and unit testing purposes.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>I know that AFL is not an object oriented programming language for the
> >>>>main part (however it does have some OO features like COM), does this
> >>>>make AFL primarily a functional programming language, a bit like
> >>>>OCaml??
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>Are functional programming languages better for financial trading
> >>>>applications? Where there is a need for speed, and quality stable code?
> >>>>>>>>AFL seems a lot brief in terms of the amount of code that you have to
> >>>>write (terse) ... this makes it more attractive for reading over and
> >>>>checking the code, and for backtesting purposes.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>I notice also that with AFL you don't have to declare data types, again
> >>>>making it much more efficient.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>Is there a drawback to using an OO code for financial trading
> >>>>systems/applications?
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>I quite like the speed and terseness of the AFL language actually, and
> >>>>also since it has many similarities to C. But would there be any
> >>>>limitations to not being able to define classes and objects?
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>I'm not an experience programmer so sorry if I sound green.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>Anyone have any ideas on Tomasz' original design philosophy when he set
> >>>>out creating the AFL language? to me it seems like he wanted to keep
> >>>>the power and similarities to C/C++ given the similar syntactical
> >>>>structure, whether because he knows that language well, or because he
> >>>>wanted it to be able to have the same sort of power, but he also seems
> >>>>to have kept in mind the needs for performance and stability, terseness
> >>>>for backtesting/speed purposes, and maybe also b/c most traders need to
> >>>>pick up the language, hence trying to make AFL easier to grasp.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>**** IMPORTANT PLEASE READ ****
> >>>>>>>>This group is for the discussion between users only.
> >>>>>>>>This is *NOT* technical support channel.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>TO GET TECHNICAL SUPPORT send an e-mail directly to
> >>>>>>>>SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>TO SUBMIT SUGGESTIONS please use FEEDBACK CENTER at
> >>>>http://www.amibroker.com/feedback/
> >>>>>>>>(submissions sent via other channels won't be considered)
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check DEVLOG:
> >>>>http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
> >
> >
>
------------------------------------
**** IMPORTANT PLEASE READ ****
This group is for the discussion between users only.
This is *NOT* technical support channel.
TO GET TECHNICAL SUPPORT send an e-mail directly to
SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com
TO SUBMIT SUGGESTIONS please use FEEDBACK CENTER at
http://www.amibroker.com/feedback/
(submissions sent via other channels won't be considered)
For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check DEVLOG:
http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
amibroker-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
amibroker-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
amibroker-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|