[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: System tester overhaul (was Re: Question on calculation)



PureBytes Links

Trading Reference Links

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
>