|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
One point is Metastock programmability alone or with MDK doesn't come
anywhere close to standard EasyLanguage capabilities.
A second is EasyLanguage has also way too severe limits compared to the
flexibility of a programming language. Getting around that implies writing
DLL's, ie be a software programmer besides being a trader.
I do agree with Lionel that the Dos era FlexSoft TAS product was in his time
a perfect illustration of a properly designed trader language. It's very
unfortunate FlexSoft failed to develop his business. A Windows version of
TAS with enhanced trading system tuning functionnality (à-la-EL) would have
been quite interesting. 21th century Metastock 7.x (even with MSK) is
nowhere close to this philosophy.
Alain
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Nadeau" <dave_nadeau@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 4:33 PM
Subject: RE: new user questions
> Michael,
>
> Well said!
>
> I am convinced that with the C++ abilities of MetaStock and the excellent
> graphics, everyone is very well served. Visual Basic is not that far from
> EasyLanguage, with the exception of numerous built in functions that a
user
> would have to create. This too would be easy to swap back and forth and
> quickly amass a very powerful preprogrammed library of functions.
>
> The real advantage of EasyLanguage, at least IMO, is that so many use it
and
> .ela's are easy to share with others. But for the same time investment to
> really learn EL, someone could learn VB or some similar language. Even
> developing a working knowledge of C++.
>
> Dave Nadeau
> Fort Collins, CO
>
> -----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
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
|