|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Ron:
You are of course correct. I agree with you.
Complexity doesn't mean better trading. There are some complicated
indicators that either came with MS or were made available at TASC and the
Equis web site. Several that I have looked at are no better and sometimes
not as good as similar "simpler" indicators.
There are some indicators/functions that require operations that are simply
outside the capability of the present MS programming language. Its necessary
to use a higher level programming language. These would be doable, in MS,
if we could directly access the metastock files as easily as an indicator in
the indicator list. The now discontinued TAS program had this kind of
capability.
Concerning supercomputers. The present generation of desktops are the
equivalent of the supercomputers of the recent past. Please note that I am
not asking for neural nets, fractal analysis, artificial intelligence and
related capabilities.
Lionel Issen
lissen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Scott" <ron@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 9:54 AM
Subject: RE: new user questions
> Couldn't resist my 2 cents worth here....even if we could raise the bar of
> complexity, it wouldn't increase the probability of higher profits with
any
> certainty. It would require a supercomputer with all the factors of the
> market built into a formula that then somehow gives an indication for the
> stock you are looking at. No matter how complex, an indicator still just
> gives an indication of possible direction. But they are fun to play with,
no
> question about that.
>
> Ron Scott
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of michael
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 6:15 AM
> To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: new user questions
>
>
>
>
> "The only way to use complex indicators in MS is to have them built into
the
> program. MS would be a very powerful program if it had a more functional
> "formula language". Something like visual basic or a subset of C++ or
> visual C would do it."
>
>
> MS has a the ability to build anything through the DLL function and MSX
> add-on. Why do you need a subset of C++ when you can use full C++,
Delphi,
> or any other DLL capable lanquage to build anything you want? You could
> even build a separate program that uses MetaStock Data and builds the
Price
> by Volume that's being talked about in a separate window.
>
> I think the people who are complaining about the MS formula language want
> something that does not exist anywhere. They want the easy to use, simple
> function commands to do incredibly complex stuff. If you want complex
stuff
> it takes a complex programming language. If you want ease of use, then
you
> want a simple set of function commands. MS has both. So I don't know
what
> people are complaining about.
>
> Michael
>
|