|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Maybe I am wrong here, but I think that this is not a machine problem at all
(somebody might want to correct my reasoning below).
Tradestation is a true 32 bit application, at least in the ads. Windows is a
32 bit operating system. Todays processors are 32 bit processors. This all
means that the optimum performance is achieved when loading in memory 32
bits a time. This is far beyond any limitation to storing year 2000 as a
date. If memory were handled in this way, that would give optimum
performance.
Performance is an issue.
Date is an issue.
Buying memory is only around 200$, one single time, for getting 128MByte
more, you win or lose that in one single day of trading. It is not an issue
at all.
Let us get the optimization where we need it (allthough memory leaks and
freezes are interesting issues to resolve).
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Mi [mailto:ami@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2000 10:57 PM
> To: Larry Wright
> Cc: Chris Baker; Omega List
> Subject: Re: TS2000i SP3 Y2K Bug
>
>
> >> ... year to "01/01/99", you get "01/01/100".
> > If they did use double precision, there would BE NO
> > PROBLEM, and we would have a civilized 2000, just
> > like everyone else does. It would be MUCH less
> > trouble for us all.
> > Let's hear it for double precision....
>
> Along your suggestion, either use double precision for
> dates only, or else the memory would be in twise as bad
> a shortage in the light of memory demanding
> applications like RadarScreen. Think of it. We want to
> load at least 5 trading days of 1 minute bars for each
> of the 500 symbols in a RS window, as a typical use
> example. We would want to go 1,500 symbols for 10 days
> if we hadn't already dipped so deep into the virtual
> part of the memory use.
>
> If we use double precision for dates only, why don't
> introduce in a date type just for dates? Floats for
> dates are innately clumsy anyway. Keep in mind though,
> EL tries to shy away from typing, to preserve the Easy
> word in the name of the language.
>
> That's my reservation on this initiative.
>
|