|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
As I do not intend to spend my life on this topic, just stay with some
facts:
1-Before the precison discussion, the 5 digit price data precison was
something unknown to most of you, and this as solved a lot of problems
concerning the useless need of doubles. Do not say the contrary, I was
enforced to post ten times before one may agree that after all, yest 5
digits precision on the final calculation is the limit that has to be
achieved.
2-An other problem seems to be a cultural problem: Most of TS whiners are
from the US or english culture liked, and according to what I read in the
press, the lawsuit solution / consumer rights is the rule there. This may be
the explanation...Sorry if I hurt someone, but I have not started this PO
debate (not interesting IMHO).
This is not exactly the case in France ( we hardly understand your
language), and we do not claim for anything that make sense to a final
consumer that should know first what it does before, WHEN he has the
possibility to verify ( sadly, things are changing here too, but it's an
other debate).
This was precisely the case with all the precision problems encountered
here, and that have been solved using the guilty tool itself (TS). i can
tell you that if a lawsuit was done in France to demonstrate that the
software is guity because of the lack of precision, the counterpart
expertise produced will make it fail because the demonstration of the fault
of the user, that has not verified the obvious precision issue, not tried to
find a solution that could exist for a specific case.
All the TRAD functions codes are disclosed, and if it was not the case, I
would conclude the contrary. But they are all disclosed. So you cannot claim
that something was hidden to the end user in this sense.
This is really different that telling that I always say that the software is
perfect and do not want to see it different.
With the exception of the DMI problem ( that I have not tested because I'm
somewhat tired of it and I'm not TRAD official support and that is a minor
issue, and I do not have the original post), no example of a so called lack
of precision has been proven here, and if one existed, it should have been
solved by a DLL. You know that DLL calls exists. It's not hidden in the
documentation, so what ?
3-What I may reproach to some people here is to have a constantly biased
point of view that is always the TS target. I never saw a contributor here ,
taken in fault, saying that he was wrong.
NEVER.
Cases were numerous since the begining of this thread, but you ask me do do
what you do not admit for yourself???! This is not serious at all.
4-More, you still continue to say that I could be biased because I sell the
software. But I do not sell it in your contry and my audience is quite 0 in
France from this list, and the impact on my sales is to the same level.
So, if I post it is because I want to do so, period.
If TS was so bad, why still continue to use it ? There are some nice
replacement ( Mathematica, Matlab...) rather that to beat the same dead
horse over years.
They should easily find half a dozen of new customers from this list.
That aside, I fully agree with the post below.
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : DH [mailto:catapult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Envoye : mercredi 1 aout 2001 21:27
> A : Omega List
> Objet : TS Precision...The Lessons
>
>
> There is a useful lesson we can all learn from the pics Bob posted. When
> I'm developing a system, I always write it as one or more indicators
> first. I like to see exactly what the calcs are doing. I'll spend hours
> staring at charts before I write any system code. If something doesn't
> look right I start trying to find out why. Once I'm satisfied with the
> visual presentation of the indicator(s), I'll convert it to a system to
> see if it can make some money.
>
> A second important lesson is to double-check the code for any EL
> functions supplied by Omega. I use very few of the built-in functions.
> My own versions are either more accurate or they execute faster. I'm
> totally self-taught as a programmer and even I can see the major flaws
> in the built-in stuff. I look at Omega's function library as code
> examples, not something you would actually use for trading. Once you get
> the mindset that you have to code everything yourself if you want it to
> work right, life gets less stressful.
>
> Pierre is right that you can work around almost any problem. Where he
> has his head in the sand is pretending that the problems are unimportant
> and the average user need not concern himself with them. But we all know
> Pierre's biases - think used car salesman - so those of us who have been
> around for a while take anything he says with a huge grain of salt. You
> know he will never say or admit anything that is going to hurt sales.
> Also, he has never been wrong about anything.... just "right in a
> different way." :-)
>
> Thanks for the valuable insights into the inner workings of TS, Bob.
>
> --
> Dennis
>
|