|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Pierre,
You know I've been to just a few titles of french software and they all have
one common trait: they're way too complex, poorly laid out and generally
overkill for the task. The effectivenes of the program is severaly hampered
in these cases. Vantif defect tracking software is a perfect example. Have
you ever heard of it? It basically defect tracking software that so
bloated with useless features that it reduces the effectivenes of the
overall program. Contrast that with DCS used by companies like Intel and
you'll see a world of difference.
And your insistance that paying such huge amount of attention to trivial
detail like what you've outlined below (CPU time, not takling a defensive
stand) should somehow be construed as good programming is yet another
example of pedagouge approach French seem to take to software. I don't know
what you were taught in France but here in America we're taught that
simplicty is better than complexity. We write and rewrite our papers until
just the esseance of our message is left for the reader to quickly absorb.
In France they must teach something different because you don't seem to do
this.
This concept applied to programming, means learning to recognize what is
important and what isn't important. Obviously you can't or else you would
recognize the foolishness of you pursuits.
This means asking yourself why am I doing this? What are my bottom-line
objectives, et. al. Obviously you don't because you waste too much time on
trivial, meaningless things like CPU time.
I asked myself these questions when I wrote this. Thus once I had it on
paper, it took a couple minutes to program but longer to verify. Once I was
done with it, I was done. I minimized my time and maximized my gain. My
goals were met.
However, my solution takes a couple lines. Your alternative solution takes
around 5 lines. How is this better by your standards?
If you want to be a PEDAGOUGE go ahead be my guest. But I will tell you the
best solutions are the simplest solutions. They are more robust and easily
reinterpreted. And the best programming is defensive, readable programming.
Of course, you've never had exposure TO A REAL PC LANGUAGE -- YOU"VE STATED
THAT YOUSELF. IF YOU DID YOU WOULD REALIZE THAT EASY LANGUAGE IS QUIRKY AND
THAT YOU HAVE TO TAKE A MORE DEFESNIVE APPROACH THAN YOU WOULD IN A REAL
LANGUAGE LIKE VB.
Easy Lanagauge not only has a stupid name but the EL really stands for
EXTREMELY LAME.
I agree that elegance is nice but in coding, but computers are so fast that
a little extra defensive code JUST DOESN'T MATTER.
Say it with me Pierre (I know it's hard) - -IT-JUST-DOESN'T-MATTER!!!!
If it takes you an extra week to program your elegant solution that may or
may not save a couple CPU cycles -- yes it's clever -- but your product is a
week late getting to market and now where are you? Up poop creek I'd say.
Brian.
HOW DARE you cuss at me in French -- Cuz... Take this you offensive brute:
(beware: my non-american french isn't nearly as good as your english)
Harmonies du soir paysage chasse-neige!!! Annees de pelerinage aux cypres
de la Villa D' Este -- Les jeux d'eau a la Villa d'Este.
-----Original Message-----
From: Orphelin@xxxxxxx [mailto:Orphelin@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 1998 10:03 AM
To: Omega-list
Subject: Re: Next bar, next bash
Dans un courrier daté du 12/11/98 17:18:29 Heure d5iver Pari29 Madrid,
bnm03@xxxxxxx a écrit :
> Pierre,
>
> You will learn my French non-programming firend that CPU time doesn't
matter
> 1 bit in code like this - in most EL code. The bottom line is getting it
> done. I wouldn't want you programming for me beause your useless
attention
> to trivial detail costs me money and wastes me time. Get a clue. This
rules
> is readability first then CPU time if it matters at all which it useally
> doesn't. This isn't assembly language programming and there's nothing
> iterative here to slow the PC down. Being the keen-eyed Elton John type
you
> are (now I really know you must spend more time practicing you
instruments
> than writing code) I would expect that you would actually notice a
> millsecond or two difference in the time it takes for my pentium II to
> execute the extra statements. Unfortunately, your attention to detail is
> not usefulin this case because this is such a small function. I also
have
> iterative code the solves the same thing. It gets the job done and it
gets
> it done well.
>
Yes, but it was not clever.
I like to take a chance of some educational proper EL programming, even to
you.
Mostly to you these times, should I write...
> iRawPrice = 0 is good defensive programming weather it needs to be there
or
> not because god knows Omega EL is quirky enough. If you were a
programmer
> you'd know this.
>
This is perfectly useless in this case.
This line can be seen as a reset of the iRawPrice variable at each bar.
You have no valid reason to do this here because the next line, this
variable
is replaced by the ROC based calculation, that does not make use of a
previous
value of itself.
Omega EL is not so quirky, and not at a point where you feel enforced to
reset
a variable to zero without any reason. This protects nothing, excepted
yourself agiast your fears, because you are not confident into the software,
but that's another story.
> Reading yours....
>
> God Pierre in your attempt to quickly criticize without thinking -- SO
> TY[ICAL OF YOUR BLIND AFFLICATION -- YOU WILL REALZIE THAT THIS CODE WAS
NOT
> MEANT TO BE PLOTTED!!!!!!!!!! A PLOT OFTHIS CODE IS USELESS YOU PIN
HEAD.
>
> GET A F--IN CLUE!
>
Bad education and typical reaction of a "Mr I know All".
The solution that I proposed can be plotted too. You never mention in your
post that is should not.
> DO TRADERS REALLY TRUST YOUR EURO-FUZZY P.O.S. SOFTWARE?
>
J' comprends pas.
Vous n'avez qu'à l'essayer, c'est gratuit.
> THIS IS A FUNCTION THAT I USE IN A LARGER SYSTEM TO CREATE A TEXT FILE.
THE
> VALUE THAT THIS FUNCTION RETURNS IS WRITTEN TO A TEXT FILE THEN AN EXCEL
VBA
> PROGRAM CREATES A TRADESHEET FOR ME PRINTING THIS VALUE.
>
Not documented in your post.
My point was to focus on good EL programming.
> If I thought your suggestions had any merit Pierre I'd be the first to
> complement you . BUT ALL OF THEM ARE NITS LIKE SO MCUH OF YOUR CRAP
DOESN'T
> AMOUNT TO A HILL OF BEANS. ADDING YOUR SUGGESTIONS WOULD MAKE
AOBSOLUTELY
> NO DIFFERENCE IN THE TIME OR OUTPUT OF THIS FUNCTION.
>
It's not a valid reason to shout.
A good practice is to recognize when you are wrong.
Only this can produce the respect that you may deserve.
> THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT 3.5 YEARS AGO I NEEDED A SOLUTION AND THIS WORKS
> WELL I MIGHT ADD.
>
Yes...it works.
> SO GO TO SCHOOL HERE PIERRE BECAUSE YOU'LL LEARN THAT IN AMERICA WE
ACTUALLY
> THINK BEFORE WE BASH AND ASK OURSELVES IF THERE'S A GOOD REASON FOR IT.
>
I know of perfect suckers in any country, including mine.
> GO BACK INTO THE HOLE YOU CRAWLED OUT OF HERE BECAUSE YOU'RE OUT OF YOUR
> LEAGUE MY FRENCH NON PROGRAMMING FRIEND.
>
Yes, but I'm polite.
> Go back to writing your stupid little indicators and crappy web pages and
> leave the real programming to professionals like me.
>
Woah...
Do you really think what you write ?
I do not ask for proofs...
-Pierre Orphelin
|