Sean,
Yes, I was talking about Equis; sorry for the confusion.
As for the deadline issue, yes, I'm well aware of the morass of standards that litter the business domain. Don't know if you are aware of this or not, but I'm a programmer by trade (don't tell my family though; they think I'm a piano player in a brothel), but having a litany of standards doesn't really entice me to invent yet another.
Also, if a deadline is REALLY what's coming between choosing which standard to use vs. writing your own, there's something else horribly wrong in your process. (Which may or may not be in your sphere of control.)
That being said, I think Equis did everything wrong. They invented a 'new' standard which seems inefficient, offers little from a technical standpoint, proprietary, and hidden.
QP, on the other hand, did it right; the standard, although new (and arguably proprietary, though it seems to be well known and liked) is efficient, and easily gotten to through a variety of mechanisms (the .dll, the excel hook, exporting to various other standards with relative ease).
The scanning is another matter. Though languages are "standards", the product is not designed to be a programming environment, so either QP or Equis can use what they want there. Personally, I wish both had features of the other, but overall I'm not really bothered by either one of them overly much.
Equis certainly show totally re-vamp data handling in Metastock.
I'm not sure what you mean there. If you say they NEED to re-vamp it, I'm with you. Sadly, it has critical mass and a rather large momentum so it'll probably not change. |
