|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
So Gary,
Considering all the negatives with TS and WL3 that you have elucidated,
can you share with us which program you use day to day for system
testing that has overcome all your concerns? We all know no program is
perfect, so dismissing a program because its not perfect is not
something you would I imagine.
Regards,
Adrian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary Fritz [mailto:fritz@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, 7 May 2004 5:09 AM
> To: VK
> Cc: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: AW: To MarkBrown: Real-time datafeeds in Python
>
>
> > ....and then you discovered Wealth-Lab Developer 3.0 ... :)
> With all
> > respect most of it is taken care of in WLD3.
>
> Volker, while WL has some good features, and WLD3 has some huge
> improvements over WLD2.1, it is hardly the perfect platform.
> Some weaknesses include:
>
> * Nothing is updated until the close of a bar. This is a
> critical weakness for many discretionary traders. (I know the
> whole argument about "systems can't react until the close of a
> bar." TS does the same thing, but that doesn't prevent it from
> updating indicator calculations in realtime.)
>
> * Optimization and portfolio testing use different interfaces.
> WLD3 is a major improvement over WLD2.1 in this respect, but it
> is still possible to get messed up with different results on your
> optimization vs. your portfolio test.
>
> * I find the WLD model of using series (which is fairly
> pervasive) to be obtuse and a pain to deal with. As an example:
> there's no good way (that I know of) to reference historic values
> of an arbitrary variable, so unless you want to save the previous
> bar's value, the only way to do do a "crosses over/under"
> operator is to use the CrossOver/Under functions. But in order
> to use those, you have to have built the entire series before you
> first reference it -- which means you either use the series
> operators beforehand, or you need a separate loop to build the
> series before you reference it. It's certainly workable but I
> personally find it very cumbersome.
>
> * Similar things could be said about many GUI design issues in
> WLD. It works, but I think (given 25 years of software and GUI
> design experience) many areas are badly designed.
>
> WLD works, and many people love it. But it drives me crazy every
> time I use it. Generally I pick it up to test out some kind of
> portfolio idea that's difficult to test in TS. After a while
> remembering how the WLD language & order model works, I get
> things working. But even then I get so frustrated and ticked off
> at WL that I drop it as soon as I finish the experiment, even
> though it does some things much better than TS. I think that's
> telling. I'm not so enamored with TS that I would stick to it if
> there was a better answer. I just haven't seen one yet.
>
> Gary
>
|