|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I am not requesting the VB or VBA for an extension to the Formula building section.
There are already enough formula's + indicators in program and around, for one to
be succesfull in investing + in the making of ca$h.
It is Automating the program, and releasing my daily Charting+exploring life using
the program, what I'm after. Getting all the repetative tedious tasks automated, is
all that I want, and that can be simply done and esthablished should VBA would
have been implemented.
Previously I was downloading stockquotes from various sources, a nightly affair
that took 1.5 hours before an updated Chart or Exploration could be put on screen/
could be run. With the use of some scripting programs and Excel's VBA, I have
managed to reduce this down to 10 min./nightly !!!!!!.
This gives me nightly another 1+ hour for Charting and other explorations. But these
actions still require my <everyday the same repetative> user input.
Now this manualy Charting and explorations can be automated too, should I have
had access to the object.
Manualy, using the mouse (and occasionaly the keyboard) is fine, but bl..dy time
consuming too.
This Charting takes me up from 10-20 min. per Layout/night.
I have a few things already automated via some scripting programs, and have
reduced the time spend to 15 min. max.
But I could have had this reduced to 3-5 min. max + easely, when using VBA.
So please add, besides the already available hardware access, also the by many users
urgently needed software access to the indicators and plots and other objects of this
stable program. (software="programmable access" and preferably via VBA).
I like to be able to show the MSK program off to the many that are intrested, that find
the program "so complicated" to use/in usage. Adding easely+quickly written stuff to
the program, convinces the many, that we are basicaly "sitting on a goldmine".
The many postings and build formula's and one's own versions created, prooves that
a bridge to be able to connect easely to the program(and therfore to the Ca$h on the
many bourses) is only in the palm of our hands. Let's be able to use it too.
Regards,
Ton Maas
ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dismiss the ".nospam" bit (including the dot) when replying.
Homepage http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas
----- Original Message -----
From: "PD Manager" <pdmanager@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: woensdag 26 juli 2000 23:16
Subject: RE: System tester overhaul (was Re: Question on calculation)
> A.J.:
>
> The Office Compatibility program was defined by Microsoft. In order to be
> declared Office Compatible, MetaStock had to incorporate numerous features
> defined by Microsoft. The Office Compatible requirements were defined by
> Microsoft and not Equis.
>
> I think you are confusing "object orientation" from a typical computer user
> point of view and a programmer point of view. Most objects within MetaStock
> have object oriented attributes that are available within the context of
> MetaStock itself. Granted, there is no programmatic object orientation that
> is exposed to the outside world.
>
> As a programmer myself, you are asking for features that I would likewise
> find useful in our products. I continue to maintain that the vast majority
> of our customers are not programmers. You, obviously look at our products
> from the point of view of a person who wants programmatic access to the
> objects within MetaStock. It is unfortunate that the MSX capability is not
> open to VBA. It turns out that Visual Basic cannot produce a Win32 DLL
> where most other programming languages can. Visual Basic is also not a very
> efficient language for speed of calculation when compared to other
> languages. With that said, I am not dictating that VB support will never be
> included for MSX capability. It would require additional work on our part.
>
> Future versions of our products may well indeed expose programmatic access
> for VB. It will not, however, be implemented at the expense of features,
> efficiency or development time for those of our users who do not have
> programming backgrounds. I do realize that many Microsoft products expose
> this functionality to programmers while maintaining the ease of use for
> non-programmers. I also know that the time required for us to expose this
> functionality would directly impact our ability to implement other features
> that would be useful for non programmers.
>
> Ken Hunt
> Programming Manager
> Equis International
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A.J. Maas [mailto:anthmaas@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 5:15 PM
> To: Metastock-List
> Cc: suggestions@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: System tester overhaul (was Re: Question on calculation)
>
>
> The answer to your question : add VBA to MSK
> {and make MSK then at the same time truely MS Office & VB compatible}.
>
> MSK advertises that it's MS Office compatible, this is true for only 50%,
> since MSK refuses to be compatible with following MS Office standard
> features:
>
> -the latest XLS file format {used in Excel, compatible throughout MS Office}
> -the latest DOC file format {used in Word, compatible throughout MS Office}
> -the GIF file format {used in PhotoDraw + compatible throughout MS Office}
> -the VBA macro programming {used in Excel+Word, compatible thr'out MS
> Office}
> -the VB programming {compatible throughout MS Office}
>
> The commercial slogan for MSK by Steve Achilles (Equis' Founder+Chairman)
> that is being advertised in MSK program demos + advertisements etc.
> since 1996 {my first experience with MSK} is also written in the MSK
> v6.x + v7.x manuals, eg taken for example from the "Getting Started" manual,
> p.25 :
>
> "MetaStock is object orientated.
> Simply put, "object orientation" means that the commands for objects are
> contained within the objects themselves.
> Rather than having to search a maze of menus and toolbars, you can access
> commands directly from the objects".
>
> Ha ha except when, you the buyer+user, wants to call on the objects'
> commands
> via programming languages, which are software tools, uppose to the
> mouse+key board, which are hardware tools.
> MS Office is fully VB compatible. Therefore if MSK wants to be fully
> compatible
> to the MS Office {and to Windows 9x /2k} program(s) than it sure has to do
> a quick overhaul-adjustment made to the program:
>
> "Give rightfully back to the user what is advertised concerning acces to the
> objects' commands: FULL control over program's object commands.
> This:
> - when hardware controls (mouse & keyboard) are being used as well as
> - when software controls (programming languages) are being used as well as
> (in close future)
> - when speach controls are being used !!!".
>
> Now any "Fast majority of users" in Excel/Word can use the VBA macro
> functionality (it is also the Internet largest + most trafficed News group),
> this since that in these programs there is also a Recorder Feature present.
> Inventive, aint't it?
>
> Same as inventive as is the Automatic Formula Correction {Debugging}
> feature,
> that comes with the MSK Indicator Builder, and that to my fullest
> satisfaction,
> and also since that your own manual describes it so beautifully, eg MSK v7.0
> man.
> -p.224 ("Locating Errors in Formulas"):
> "MetaSock does an excellent job of reporting errors in formula's. When you
> enter
> a formula MetaStock tests the formula for syntax (validity of). The effect
> of this
> error-reporting technique is that MetaStock HELPS you enter valid
> formulas".
> The macro-recording feature in Excel/Word HELPS you TOO to WRITE + LEARN
> the VBA macro's.
>
> A then made simple calculation(eg 1+1=2), made from all the above and below
> summed suggestions, eh the must bees, teaches us that VBA minimally MUST be
> added to MetaStock, and that a full VB compatibility is also a basic MUST.
>
> "The VAST majority of our users are not programmers" doesn't make sence.
> Perhaps not professionaly, but any program user is also a programmer at
> heart,
> perhaps without knowing it, but without his/hers' user input
> "NOTHING in a PC will start functioning".
> So basicaly, we your buyers+users are all "programmers" by heart, eg it runs
> through our vains. It is the bloodline:
> If you can deal with a PC functioning + properly, you can deal with
> "programming".
> If you want to, and to what extend, is then a second <personal> option and
> slightly
> irrelevant here, but "programming" a PC to function and run a progmatic
> approach
> properly to first get to MSK and then to get also getting a MSK Chart on the
> display,
> is what we, your buyers+users, do and have to do. Each and every single day.
> An ever returning program by itselve...........
> So do not underestimate your program buyers+users (your basic bloodline for
> gettin your $'s bread on your table), eg PC users in general and MSK PC
> users in
> particular, professional or non-professional !!.
>
> And by the way, am pleased that Equis+you attend to us users on the List.
> And too, much like your quality explanations. Like software-bug-wise, can
> sympathise
> with your's and Equis situation(s) and your forwarding+informative answers.
>
> -cc suggestions@xxxxxxxxx {for adding the VB and VBA compatibility and
> features}
>
> Regards,
> Ton Maas
> ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Dismiss the ".nospam" bit (including the dot) when replying.
> Homepage http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "PD Manager" <pdmanager@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: maandag 24 juli 2000 19:18
> Subject: RE: System tester overhaul (was Re: Question on calculation)
>
>
> > Agreed. But then I (and I presume you also if you understand the benefits
> > of object oriented programming) am speaking from a programmer's point of
> > view. The VAST majority of our users are not programmers. That is why we
> > opened up indicator calculations to the MSX capability.
> >
> > Virtually all users can enter a formula: ExtFml("The Coolest Indicator")
> >
> > It takes a programmer to write the MSX DLL behind "The Coolest Indicator".
> > The programmer can then use almost any technique they want (object
> oriented,
> > top-down, spaghetti code).
> >
> > Ken Hunt
> > Programming Manager
> > Equis International
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gary Lyben [mailto:gary@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2000 10:06 AM
> > To: 'metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
> > Subject: RE: System tester overhaul (was Re: Question on calculation)
> >
> >
> >
> > Sure would be easier if your formula language was object oriented.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: PD Manager [mailto:pdmanager@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2000 11:15 AM
> > To: 'metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
> > Subject: RE: System tester overhaul (was Re: Question on calculation)
> >
> >
> > Wherever the information regarding MetaStock coding practices came from,
> > that information is incorrect. MetaStock design and coding methods are
> > not
> > from the 60's or 70's. MetaStock is NOT a single, monolithic, top-down,
> > procedure oriented mass of spaghetti code.
> >
> > MetaStock has been coded using methods of the 80's and 90's.
> > Event-driven
> > programming and object oriented design and coding have been used. Now
> > to
> > deflect all the comments that I am sure are coming: Obviously this
> > hasn't
> > helped us produce bug-free software. Regardless of which methods are
> > used,
> > we are trying to produce quality software that you, our customers find
> > useful at a reasonable price.
> >
> > For the record, most of the difficulties involved with adding new
> > features
> > to MetaStock (or any program) are caused by trying to maintain
> > compatibility
> > with previous versions of the program. Baggage from the past tends to
> > make
> > new features difficult to implement. I submit the latest round of
> > problems
> > with upgrading custom indicators etc. We have tried to maintain a
> > capability to upgrade all formulas back through version 2.x.
> >
> > At some point we will have to abandon backward compatibility in order to
> > produce the capabilities that our users want. At that time, we will
> > have to
> > take our lumps because we have made some older versions obsolete.
> >
> > As stated before, I am not here to do a public relations job, nor am I
> > here
> > to defend Equis or make excuses. I am here to clear up misunderstanding
> > or
> > misinformation when necessary.
> >
> > Ken Hunt
> > Programming Manager
> > Equis International
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lionel Issen [mailto:lissen@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2000 7:18 AM
> > To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: PD Manager
> > Subject: Re: System tester overhaul (was Re: Question on calculation)
> >
> >
> > Think it was sometime last year, in response to requests concerning V
> > 6.5x,
> > Equis said that one of the big difficulties in making changes was that
> > Metastock was written as one large program. This means that the program
> > is
> > written using the programming methodologies of the early main frame
> > computers circa 1960's.
> >
> > Back around 1970 IBM developed a modular programming methodology with
> > the
> > objective of avoiding these problems. IBM published the details and made
> > presentations of this methodology at relevant meetings. I think that it
> > was
> > called structured programming or top down programming.
> >
> > About 2 years ago, Scientific American had a feature article on error
> > free
> > programming. The article referred to work done in France and in the US.
> > The
> > article mentioned that most software companies won't use it because: "it
> > is
> > too expensive" and "it takes too long". Actual investigations showed
> > that
> > the overall programming costs are cheaper because there are fewer
> > revision
> > and bug removal costs, and overall programming time is also much less.
> >
> > Lionel Issen
> > lissen@xxxxxxxxx
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Owen Davies <owen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Friday, July 21, 2000 10:41 AM
> > Subject: Re: System tester overhaul (was Re: Question on calculation)
> >
> >
> > > Among other useful suggestions, Ron Stockstill requested:
> > >
> > > > 1. Use metastock formulas for calculating the actual entry price
> > > > and the exit price.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Provide functions that will return the entry price and exit
> > price.
> > >
> > > Yes, yes, yes!
> > >
> > > Also, though I know nobody else probably much cares, I would
> > > really like to be able to see my system results in dollars, rather
> > > than points. I'd much appreciate a database of futures contract
> > > details to use with system tests -- conveniently editable, of course,
> > > so we can update it after changes. And the usual specifiable
> > > fudge factors for commissions and estimated slippage.
> > >
> > > But if you'll just give us the first two, I'll happily settle for it.
> > >
> > > Owen Davies
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
|