|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Gary,
Let me try to address your comments below...
Regards,
Volker Knapp
(www.wealth-lab.com)
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Gary Fritz [mailto:fritz@xxxxxxxx]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. Mai 2004 20:09
An: VK
Cc: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: 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.)
I AM GLAD TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON THAT POINT.
* 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 KNOW THAT YOU HAD DIFFICULTIES UNDERSTANDING THE CONCEPT IN THE PAST. I
GUESS THAT IS BECAUSE YOU ARE USED TO TS. NOT YOUR FAULT BUT IF YOU WOULD
STICK WITH WL YOU WOULD GET USED TO IT AND WILL NOT HAVE ANY PROBLEMS ANY
MORE.
* 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)
WHICH COULD ALREADY BE THE ANSWER. ;)
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.
YOU ARE ONE OF THE FEW ONCE WHO SAY SO; REALLY. IF YOU WISH I CC YOU ON
EVERY ONE WHO TELLS US DIFFERENT.
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.
SEE, EVEN BEFORE I READ THIS I KNEW THAT YOU KEEP FORGETTING THINGS IN WL
AND THEN YOU THINK IT IS NOT WORKING EVEN THOU IT DOES WORK AND THAT AGAIN
TURNS YOU OF.
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, AS YOU KNOW WE HAVE IMPLEMENTED SOME OF YOUR COMMENTS THAT WE BELIEVE
MADE SENSE, I AM SURE THAT THIS IS MORE THEN YOU HAVE EVER RECEIVED FROM
OTHER PRODUCTS?
THE MANY MORE POSSIBILITIES/TOOLS THAT ARE AVAILABLE AT WL MAKE IT MORE
COMPLEX AND THEREFOR ALLOW MORE USER MISTAKES. WE KNOW IT IS HARD TO
CONVINCE LONGTIME, HARDCORE TS USERS AND MAY BE FOR MANY PIERRES SUGGESTION
IS THE BETTER SOLUTION.
LET ME CLOSE THIS LONG REPLY BY LETTING YOU KNOW THAT WE WILL WORK AS LONG
ON WL UNTIL WE HAVE CONVINCED THE LAST CRITIC: ;)
VOLKER
Gary
|