|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
This is the first message that I read on the subject,
but wanted to put in my $0.02 right away: drawing on
my programming experience, languages that require more
code are usually more powerful that those that require
less. Programming requires a lot of code; if you
don't see it, that just means that it's been coded
into the underlying components and in the process of
doing so, you may have lost control of some of the
finer details. You need to choose the level of
complexity that is right for the task.
--- Mike Eggleston <mikee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2002, M. Simms wrote:
>
> > WARNING, WARNING...
> > Wealthscript language NO WHERE NEAR the elegance
> and simplicity of Easy
> > Language.....
> > and very close to the C or Pascal language.
> > Clumsy handling of time series references as
> well.....
> > Requires 2x to 3x the number of lines of code to
> accomplish the same result
> > as EL.
>
> Where it may take more lines in some situations, it
> has the benefit
> of showing you *exactly* the source of what you're
> doing and you can
> *explicitely*(?) control what happens within the
> indicators and
> functions rather than scratching your head for
> multiple days trying
> to figure out why things aren't working like the
> code says.
>
> Mike
>
|