Free Genetic Program for Live Trading

New comment
 

I am looking for free genetic program for my indicators and EAs for live trading purpose.
Can anyone recommend any free genetic program for live trading?I have found this site
but I am not sure if it is suitable for live trading: /go?link=http://www.creativemachineslab.com/ thanks.

 
From initial look, the program interface appears to be graphical which means that there needs to be a fair bit of manual intervention between it and the EA which sort of defeats the purpose of an EA. Besides, it's only 0.8 beta so I don't think I will put any money on it, unattended, if at all.
 
eurequa is free, at least it was free when i last downloaded it. The absolue value of a version number has a different meaning in free projects as it would have when there would be a marketing department involved. In free projects the 1.0 mark represents perfection which of course can never be reached. In commercial projects the version number is only used to tell different versions apart and has no further meaning, it is dictated by only by the marketing department and does not allow any conclusions about software quality or maturity.

A version number of 0.8 indicates a quite mature project.
 
They could just give it a number, only. However, they also decided to call it beta. In general, free projects don't worry about alpha's or beta's. Maybe, it's there to convey the fact that it is beta.

There's also plenty of free software that choose to number their software version 1 and well above. To some 1.0 means perfection, to others it has no meaning. They can call it whatever they like as there's no marketing department to dictate how the software should be numbered.
 
Version numbers can only be interpreted correctly when seen in relation to the whole project history. If a project is 10 years old and has a version number like 0.9.9.98-RC6 then it is driven by perfectionists and it can be assumed to be of superior quality. If a product is at version 12.0 just because the competition has just released 11.0 then the version number is meaningless and other factors must be considered.

I was in the 0.9.9.9... camp until I recently decided to stop doing this and just make my version numbers the release date: 2010.4.18.1 (the last digit leaves room for hotfixes on the same day of the initial release or minor fixes for an old branch)
 
7bit wrote >>
I was in the 0.9.9.9... camp until I recently decided to stop doing this and just make my version numbers the release date: 2010.4.18.1 (the last digit leaves room for hotfixes on the same day of the initial release or minor fixes for an old branch)

Ditto...I too switched from using arbitrary incrementing revision numbers to just using datestamps as a "most recent rev" indicator. Makes it soooo much easier (for me anyways) to multi-task between projects and knowing where (and when) I was at with the latest iteration of project XYZ.

 
7bit wrote >>
I was in the 0.9.9.9... camp until I recently decided to stop doing this and just make my version numbers the release date: 2010.4.18.1 (the last digit leaves room for hotfixes on the same day of the initial release or minor fixes for an old branch)

1005phillip wrote >>

Ditto...I too switched from using arbitrary incrementing revision numbers to just using datestamps as a "most recent rev" indicator. Makes it soooo much easier (for me anyways) to multi-task between projects and knowing where (and when) I was at with the latest iteration of project XYZ.

That's a good idea guys. I've been utilizing the 'v1.23.45' convention and always put the compiling date AND time into the file header anyway. I often add letters at the end of it as well while under development. But I'm thinking about your suggestions and perhaps doing the same for the file name as well, but will add the time on a 24 hour basis as I do I do in the file header: 2010-04-19_10-07.

The problem that I see with this approach is that the file name is going to be quite long as I haven't even given the actual 'FileName' yet. Hence it would be: TrendTrader_2010-04-19_10-07.mq4 which is getting pretty unwieldy. Being a NuB, I use and save a LOT of updated versions as I go and am coding and testing them so that I have 'working BackUps' in case I get one that the coding doesn't work I can then go back to the previous version and not lose much work.

I always utilize the exact same naming format for the date so that they all 'sort' correctly when I'm looking for a file.

New comment
Reason: