This discussion is highly egotical and very strange. Waste of time. Bottom line: I think we are all traders here, and some are also developers. I am not a developer, just a trader. I used Metastock, SuperCharts, Tradestation and Wealthlab in the past; especially Tradestation so called-"EasyLanguage". I can just testify how much more easy-to-use and fast is AFL - I have never struggled to put into an AFL a trading idea I had. And again I am a trader, not a programmer. I looks like this discussion is a developer discussion.
Carl --- In [email protected], Ronald Davis <xok...@...> wrote: > > TJ>Especially the feedback from ordinary person, from the beginner and from > anybody else > > This is Ron Davis aka "ordinary person and anybody else". > > I think TJ is so good, he could change the ADK so that Plug ins could access > the fabulous array processing within Amibroker. > > I want a plug in, but I don't want anyone to see my AFL smoothing codes. > > With an ADK that accesses arrays, I could then hire a programmer to make an > empty plug in, and then I could place my smoothing > AFL codes in it. > > I have attached a chart IXC to show thest chart lines. Ron D, aka ordinary > person. > > > ________________________________ > From: Tomasz Janeczko <gro...@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sat, January 9, 2010 8:09:55 PM > Subject: Re: [amibroker] A computer science related question on the AFL > Language > > > > Hello, > > > I use your product because it is one of the few that offer decent > built in drawing capabilities (pixel level) > Oh really? I thought that every language has pixel level drawing, isn't > it ? > > With regards to "some positive attributes" that you mention you surely > mean your great sentence that says "AFL is a deeply flawed language". > In my understanding is plain unjustified bashing nothing more. > > And you are once again wrong in your conclusion. I appreciate the > feedback. > Especially the feedback from ordinary person, > from the beginner and from anybody else with one exception. > With exception to persons who claim in first sentence that they work > for multi-billion-dollar institutions. It is pathetic. If somebody > starts with something like that he/she automatically loses all > credibility in my eyes. > > Best regards, > Tomasz Janeczko > amibroker.com > > On 2010-01-10 02:44, Potato Soup wrote: > > > >A very simple question to answer. I use your product because it > >is one of the few that offer decent built in drawing capabilities > >(pixel level). How much money I or my employers have is largely > >irrelevant, all tools are considered for the job. > > > >>I'm sorry that you don't want to take some constructive criticism from > >other people in the field. That is unfortunate for your customers. I, > >nor anyone else has suggested that you failed in your original > >endeavor, or that AB/AFL is unworthy of any recognition. If you re-read > >my original posts you'll see that I mention that it has some positive > >attributes. But if you expect everyone to blindly praise you and > >suppress constructive criticism or advice than you will be > >disappointed. The best software takes the best ideas from everyone and > >synthesizes them together. I still have hope that AB can someday be the > >best. > > > >>Cheers. > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > From: >Tomasz Janeczko <gro...@...> > >To: [email protected] > >Sent: Sat, January 9, > >2010 8:37:17 PM > >Subject: Re: > >[amibroker] A computer science related question on the AFL Language > > > > > > > >>Hello, > > > >>If you are so great and working for all those multi-billion > >institutions I am wondering what are you doing here, > >>using so cheap and "flawed" system as you wrote in your original post. > >Surely for that amount of money that you have in hand > >>you could hire best programmers in the world and write your own > >super-trouper language and all that stuff. > > > >>So please give me a break. I wrote AFL for myself back in 1995 because > >I need tool for my own purposes. I decided to offer it for others and > >some people liked it. That's whole story. If you do not like it then > >search elsewhere or write your own for your multi-billion institution. > >And no thanks I do not need your advice. > > > >>Best regards, > >>Tomasz Janeczko > >amibroker.com > > > >>On 2010-01-10 02:24, Potato Soup wrote: > > > > Sorry for adding my "twisted" opinion, which only has > >>experience > >>building trading systems for multi-billion dollar institutions. > >> > >>>>And Python's math modules that are implemented in Fortran and C are not > >>"slow" In fact there are Python math implementations that run on GPUs. > >>Python as a language can be optimized to be as fast as anything. > >> > >>>>I'm more than happy to offer help if the AB author needs assistance > >>adopting more modern and "twisted" technologies. My goal in offering > >>the feedback was to help improve the product. > >> > >>>>Cheers. > >>________________________________ > > >>From: Tomasz Janeczko <gro...@...> > >>Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 02:17:31 +0100 > >>To: <[email protected]> > >>Subject: Re: [amibroker] A computer science related > >>question on the AFL Language > >> > >> > >>Hello, > >> > >>>>Precisely. > >> > >>>>AFL is designed to be able to express trading system rules / indicators > >>in easy and short form and to be fast. That's all. It is intended to be > >>easy to use and fast thanks to array processing that general-purpose > >>languages lack. Just compare Traders Tips formulas published on S&C > >>site for various platforms (some of them using so called "standard" > >>laguages) and you will quickly find which formula is the shortest and > >>easiest to understand. That speaks for itself and has more weight that > >>sombody's twisted opinion. > >> > >>>>If one wants full blown C++ - one can use it - just write your code in > >>C++, compile it as a plugin and that's it. > >> > >>>>Python/Lua and all that stuff are slow compared to AFL array > >>processing. And as far as object-oriented programming is considered, > >>most people are not comfortable with it (and belive it or not but most > >>people are NOT programmers). I can tell that because I hear a lot of > >>feedback from users. > >> > >>>>Best regards, > >>>>Tomasz Janeczko > >>>>amibroker.com > >> > >>>>On 2010-01-09 14:57, Prashanth wrote: > >> > >> > >>>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 > >>>>To: AmiBroker (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" <jbuff...@...> > >>>>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" <cascade3...@...> > >>>>>>>>Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 08:26:59 > >>>>>>>>To: <[email protected]> > >>>>>>>>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 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > >
