|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
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
> >
>
|