|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
VB's watches, breakpoints, steps, and other debugging tools are put to shame
by EL's powerful debugging command: Print(...). What newbie programmer would
want to have all those distracting tools in order to see what the program
does and get the bugs out.
Earl
>Say, if VB (or even a TA language like FlexSoft TAS) can already formulate
>your very elementary sample more directly in the simplest and most
efficient
>manner, how is your illustration supposed to be supportive of the
completely
>arbitrary stance that : "VB will not be more suitable because it has more
>power,
>and EL is already complex for the trader".
>
>The only demonstration you provided is that EL is a questionable trader
>programming language.
>The rest has no substance. It's a one line technical magazine article
>containing : " The editor's choice is EL ! VB is too powerful then to
complex.
>Period.". Very valuable, thanks.
>All in all, it was possibly the worst idea to even pay attention to one
more
>magistral prof stance... with no proof
>
>-- Alain
>_____________________________________________
>>Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 10:00:04 EST
>>From: Orphelin@xxxxxxx
>>To: Omega-list <Omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>Subject: Re: Where's the Board???
>
><>
>>My purpose was to demonstrate that people able to do such mistakes with
Easy
>>language will certainly do bigger mistakes with Visual Basic, that has
MORE
>>features than EL, so more reasons to write stupid code.
>>VB has more power than EL has.
>>Period.
>>This is not a proof that an average EL user will use it with benefit.
>>
>>Despite that fact that you are a programmer, you do not master EL to write
an
>>adequate comment in this case.
>>The benefit was not to reduce there lines into 2, but:
>>
>>-To avoid 1 momentum calculation ( a price difference).
>>-To avoid to store intermediate calculation in value1 and value2, because
>>previous values of c-c[1] are already stored in the maxbars back array,
and I
>>only refer to the previous values of TWO variable instead of THREE.
>>
>>> I'm sure most of use do remember the good old times when PC BASIC
>>> was an interpreted language on 1000x slower PC's and programmers
>>> were judged based on their capabilities to write the shortest possible
>>> code. I've beaten them all hands down :
>>>
>>> A=c-c[3];B=.03*(A-A[1])+.97*B;
>>>
>>
>>This solution is valid too.
>>It's the solution that I posted!!!
>>You have just changed the same of variables into A et B ( this do not
spare EL
>>TOK code), and concatened it into a single line.
>>The lenght of the compiled code will be the same!!!!
>>
>>More, it will not work because "A" used as a variable name is an EL skip
word
>>that will not verify in Easy language!
>>
>>> Nice EL code, but are you convinced ? - Where is the demonstration
>>> that, once compiled, it is certainly faster than a compiled :
>>>
>>> VALUE1 = @MOMENTUM(C,3);
>>> VALUE2 = @MOMENTUM(C,3)[1];
>>> VALUE3 = .03*(VALUE1-VALUE2)+(1-.03)*VALUE3;
>>>
>>> The truth is not there ! The kind of optimization games doesn't make
>>> any sense for a modern programmer... they should even less for
>>> a trader.
>>
>>Read my post again.
>>It was only a simple example posted to this list.
>>
>>The problem is not the language in itself, but more the user of the
language
>>and its own knowledge of it.
>>Thanks for your demonstration. It's the prof that I was right:
>>
>>You failed yourself in your demonstration, live!
>
|