|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Mike a translation of the EL code would look like this:
EL:
value1 = close - close[1];
WS:
value1 := PriceClose ( bar ) - PriceClose ( bar - 1 )
Looks similar :).
Volker Knapp
Wealth-Lab Inc.
http://www.wealth-lab.com
http://www.wealth-lab.de
++-----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
++Von: Mike Eggleston [mailto:mikee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
++Gesendet: Mittwoch, 14. August 2002 14:41
++An: Volker Knapp
++Cc: Tony Gray; omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx; Antony Gray
++Betreff: Re: Replacement system for Supercharts + Easy Language
++Translator.
++
++
++On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Volker Knapp wrote:
++
++> Thanks for mentioning Wealth-Lab as an replacement. But what
++makes you think
++> that the WL programming language is at a lower level? I am
++100% sure it is
++> at a much higher level then EL. Maybe you can point it out to
++me a bit more
++> precise so that I can follow you?
++>
++> Thanks in advance.
++>
++> Volker Knapp
++> Wealth-Lab Inc.
++> http://www.wealth-lab.com
++> http://www.wealth-lab.de
++>
++> ++-----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
++> ++Von: Mike Eggleston [mailto:mikee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
++> ++Gesendet: Dienstag, 13. August 2002 20:00
++> ++An: Tony Gray
++> ++Cc: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx; Antony Gray
++> ++Betreff: Re: Replacement system for Supercharts + Easy Language
++> ++Translator.
++> ++
++> ++
++> ++On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Tony Gray wrote:
++> ++
++> ++> Hi;
++> ++> Is any one aware of a system that exists or is
++currently being written
++> ++> that will replace Omega Supercharts and that comes with a
++> ++Translator to
++> ++> convert Easy Language to that system. Any leads however
++vague will be
++> ++> much appreciated. Many Thanks
++> ++>
++> ++
++> ++The only system I know of is Wealth Lab. Its programming
++language is at
++> ++a lower level than EL, but a translator would not be that
++> ++difficult to write.
++> ++
++> ++Mike
++> ++
++>
++
++I don't have a specific example to give you, but what I
++remember of the language
++is that you must explicitely code processing price series data
++and specifically
++code looking at previous days data. As such, in one language
++you have the
++built in syntatic sugar to say
++
++ value1 = close - close[1];
++
++vs
++
++ value1 = priceseries(0) - priceseries(-1);
++
++The first is a higher-level language syntatically because it
++hides some of
++the grittier(?) aspects of dealing with the data than the second.
++
++I prefer the second for many reasons, but there are aspects of the first
++that are more 'elegant'. The problem I most commonly have with the first
++is that the langauge (EL) tries to 'help' me too much. I want
++more explicit
++control of the language and what it is doing/calculating (as in
++the second)
++than daily coding around the 'help' given by the first (EL).
++
++Since EL is 'helping' so much in the processing of data a translator is
++more difficult to write, but not impossible. The translator must hide
++through macros or other means the implicit price series generation that
++happens within EL code.
++
++--
++
++"Syntatic sugar leads to cancer of the semi-colon." - Larry Wall
++
|