|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
> I find that no IDE can compare well with the tools that already exist.
Sounds like you've done a great job of working with the Unix-class
tools. I'll confess I never tried to build a roll-your-own IDE out
of vi, ctags, etc etc. Maybe I'd feel differently if I had.
> Actually I believe a 'trading system' would be very small, maybe a
> few hundered to a thousand lines.
A "trading system" can be trivially small. A "trading system
development, backtesting, and realtime execution platform" is a
different beastie entirely, and that's what I want.
> If you view the data, indicators, and signals with something
> approaching the film _The Matrix_, then you require much less of
> the system and any real-time data thrown its way.
You lost me there. :-)
> C++ with its constructors, destructors, overloading, mangling,
> templates, and other features allow the writing of a truely bad app
> to be trivial.
No argument there. However I'd say the same is true, in spades, of
perl. Maybe there aren't quite as many genuine landmines as there
are in C++, I don't know, but the default mode for Perl writers seems
to be to write it as tersely and hard-to-read as possible. You'd
think they were writing Forth or something. And for a performance-
oriented application like trading systems, I think C++ would have a
clear advantage.
But we're arguing religion here. If we want to keep this up, we
probably ought to take it off the list.
> In general I can develop an app faster and more reliable in perl
> than I can in *any* other language.
That I'd easily believe. It's the runtime performance that concerns
me.
> The translator is not at run-time (I just now realized this
> maybe some of the concern). Do all possible at compile time first,
> and run-time only as necessary.
Right, I understood that.
Gary
|