|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
More eye opening information, thanks all. I wonder if it is possible to get
computers to do some of that testing and debugging so that the programmers
could spend their time better?
As I told Cash, if you want the true answers you almost always find them
when you follow the money. That is why Cash's answer was so good, he
explained the most probabal reason that Omega has done what it has over
recent years, and why that perfect software is so illusive.
Good luck with your venture Bob.
Prosper
----- Original Message -----
From: <HDD95@xxxxxxx>
To: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2001 6:27 AM
Subject: Re: Some general questions
> > > First, why is it so hard to create a good trading software. I know
that
> > > there have been a lot of them tried. Some on this list seem to know a
lot
> > > about programing, why haven't some of you done the job?
>
> I have been working on a trading software product since December 1988.
Full
> time since Spring 1991. So, as someone who as actually done it (well,
almost
> done it, the product is still prerelease), I think I can speak with some
> authority on this topic.
>
> The recent posts from M. Simms and Cash were right on the mark. M. Simms
said:
>
> <<<
> A basic trading platform using Java or even VBA within Excel is not that
> tough..... what kills you is the extra "features" that basically become
> "requirements"...once you see what you REALLY NEED to make it a winning
> platform
>
> - backtesting
> - optimization with reporting
> - performance analysis
> - graphics and text drawing
> - built-in programming language
> - etc, etc.
> >>>
>
> This was my experience. The basic platform went easily and quickly. Then
the
> complexity blows up geometrically as you fill in the pieces. Cash went
into
> more detail. His analysis makes me feel better about how long this project
> has taken me.
>
> I have been involved with trading system programming for a long time, and
> therefore have some inside knowledge. I have heard of many failed
attempts,
> and I am not only referring to the public failures everyone on this
mailing
> list knows about. I am also talking about private projects which go
through
> several restarts and change of programmers before anything is actually
> accomplished, or fail when the programmer has already spend many times as
> much time as expected and the programmer decides to cut his losses by
saying
> he is going to walk unless he gets more money.
>
> Why? Well, programmers always underestimate, but for many reasons a
trading
> software application in particular seems to appear to be easier than it
is.
> Using myself as an example, it has taken me years longer than I would have
> expected to get to where I am now. It is what the previous posts have
said. A
> basic environment isn't hard, but a full featured environment is very
hard.
> Furthermore, a commercial quality full featured environment is very very
hard.
>
> This is how I have addresses some of the problems Cash mentioned. Rather
than
> a lot of money, I have put a lot of time into it, and remained self funded
> from custom programming. Also, I have not been in a hurry to make the
product
> shrink-wrap. Rather, I have spent years working with customers making
fixes
> and customizations as necessary, sending updates as needed. As far as
quality
> testing, I have managed to find customers interested enough in the unique
> features the software offers, as well as my programming services, so that
it
> has really been customers who have done the testing, not me. I have
instead
> concentrated on the software features to attract customers who are willing
to
> be a guinea pig for a new feature.
>
> This is the really tough one (quoting Cash):
>
> > And it has to be all things to all people. You need things for
> > equity traders, futures traders, options traders, etc. You need to
> > be able to handle people that want intraday and swing trading,
> > and long-term investing. You have people that want fundamentals
> > and you have people that want technicals.
>
> I have added feature after feature requested by one customer or another.
No
> matter how many features I add, the next person needs something else.
> However, for me, I can see the light at the end of the tunnel. The current
> software is only a subset of TradeStation (PowerST specializes in
heavyweight
> system testing, not real time charting), but it is reaching the point
where I
> expect there will be a significant marketplace for the current feature
set.
>
> It is a difficult application directed at a very specialized marketplace.
It
> isn't like a mass market application with literally millions of
prospective
> customers, which justifies 100 programmers working on the project. I
wonder
> how many programmers Microsoft throws at an application. I really don't
know,
> but I would guess 100 programmers and testers easily. Probably more.
>
> Bob Bolotin
> President, RDB Computing, Inc.
> Developer of "PowerST: The Power System Tester"
> www.powertesting.com
> powerst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 847-982-1910
>
|