Concurring with Prashanth, most traders including myself, are not hard core
programmers, and already I only use 30% of AFl and that is enough for me. It
allows me to scan DB and watchlists I build beforehand and evaluate some
trading plan.

 

 

JP  

 

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Prashanth
Sent: 01/09/2010 8:57 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [amibroker] A computer science related question on the AFL
Language

 

  

Its not a question of whether it can be improved or not. Its a question of
how user friendly it is. Most traders are not programmers and hence complex
coding is out of question for vast majority. Its this group that appreciates
the easiness of coding in AFL as compared to other languages which may hold
more potential but can be much more difficult to learn.

 

I believe TJ has simpliefied as much as possible and maybe during that
simplification process, there were some sacrifices that were done. Unless
one is a hard core programmer, I feel AFL more than meets every
specification. For those who like to use more tools, ADK is always there to
use and create outside of AB what they desire to achieve.

 

Cheers

 

Prashanth

 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Potato Soup <mailto:[email protected]>  

To: AmiBroker <mailto:[email protected]>  (Discussion List) 

Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 19:15 PM

Subject: Re: [amibroker] A computer science related question on the AFL
Language

 

Why design one when Python is free, as is Lua, Squirrel and other easy
scripting languages? I have built many trading systems for hedge funds and
big banks. Never once considered building a language with it. 

Sounds like you think AFL can't be improved? From a language perspective AFL
has some good ideas and concepts but uneven execution. A lot of things feel
incrementally added, whether they were or not I don't know. 

  _____  

From: "J Paul Buffon" <[email protected]> 

Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 08:34:37 -0500

To: <[email protected]>

Subject: RE: [amibroker] A computer science related question on the AFL
Language

 

Well, you should design one!  As far as I am concerned, elegant and great
price/quality ratio, the best in the market in that bracket. Part of my tool
box and achieved north of 70% last year with it.

 

 

 

JP 

 

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Potato Soup
Sent: 01/09/2010 8:24 AM
To: AmiBroker (Discussion List)
Subject: Re: [amibroker] A computer science related question on the AFL
Language

 

  

AFL is an imperative language primarily with a dose of vector processing
features that enable the terseness that you talk about. I would not describe
it as an OO language in any way, just because it has OO bindings or provides
access to objects. If you can not write an object then the OO syntax
introduced in the backtester is syntactic sugar at best. I also wouldn't say
it has anywhere near the power of C or C++ just because it offers some
syntax similarities. Those languages derive their power mainly from their
ability to access memory directly, and at the OS' discretion this means
writing directly to hardware memory maps. Of course C++ takes things much
further. But AFL doesn't give you anywhere the expressive data structure
creation abilities that a true imperative or OO language would. 

Personally I feel AFL is a deeply flawed language that mixes constructs from
Basic and C at very superficial levels. It provides its power from
underneath the hood, not at the true language level. 

I would pay a lot of money for AB with Python as its language, using NumPy
as the fast math and numerical processing underpinning. 

This is not to say that AFL doesn't have elegant concepts or advantages. It
is just not a well designed language from the ground up. 

-----Original Message-----
From: "cascade3891" <[email protected] <mailto:cascade3891%40yahoo.com>
>
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 08:26:59 
To: <[email protected] <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: [amibroker] A computer science related question on the AFL Language

Hi Amibroker community,

I have specific questions about the AFL language, regarding where it stands
within the computer language spectrum(s) and what effect that has on
speed/performance, agility and modularity as well as its accuracy for
readability and unit testing purposes. 

I know that AFL is not an object oriented programming language for the main
part (however it does have some OO features like COM), does this make AFL
primarily a functional programming language, a bit like OCaml?? 

Are functional programming languages better for financial trading
applications? Where there is a need for speed, and quality stable code?
AFL seems a lot brief in terms of the amount of code that you have to write
(terse) ... this makes it more attractive for reading over and checking the
code, and for backtesting purposes. 

I notice also that with AFL you don't have to declare data types, again
making it much more efficient. 

Is there a drawback to using an OO code for financial trading
systems/applications?

I quite like the speed and terseness of the AFL language actually, and also
since it has many similarities to C. But would there be any limitations to
not being able to define classes and objects? 

I'm not an experience programmer so sorry if I sound green. 

Anyone have any ideas on Tomasz' original design philosophy when he set out
creating the AFL language? to me it seems like he wanted to keep the power
and similarities to C/C++ given the similar syntactical structure, whether
because he knows that language well, or because he wanted it to be able to
have the same sort of power, but he also seems to have kept in mind the
needs for performance and stability, terseness for backtesting/speed
purposes, and maybe also b/c most traders need to pick up the language,
hence trying to make AFL easier to grasp. 











------------------------------------

**** IMPORTANT PLEASE READ ****
This group is for the discussion between users only.
This is *NOT* technical support channel.

TO GET TECHNICAL SUPPORT send an e-mail directly to 
SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com

TO SUBMIT SUGGESTIONS please use FEEDBACK CENTER at
http://www.amibroker.com/feedback/
(submissions sent via other channels won't be considered)

For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check DEVLOG:
http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/

Yahoo! Groups Links







Reply via email to