Related
I have been working on an algorithm ( Not mine, I am just modifying it ) that predicts when to buy and sell on the FOREX market. I need to be able to open and close orders, dynamically update parameters of the orders ( such as stoploss, maximum stop etc. ) and receive real time tick data.
I have been researching for well over a week, and have no success.
The closest I have gotten is using JavoNet and Mt4 Api
I managed to import the DLL into java and use a MQL4 function, which was AccountBalance(), however this has returned 0.0, which was not the account balance, I messed around with the code and the settings on MT4 client but still no luck.
Q0: Can anyone please point me in the right direction?
I am new to automated FOREX trading but from what I understand there is a broker somewhere with a MT4 server and I connect to that server with my MT4 client on my windows machine.
Q1: If this is the case, do I need to make an API work with the server side instead of my client side?
All these DLL's I have tried so far have been used with the MT4 client software on my machine.
I have also been doing some reading on the FIX-Protocol and ZeroMQ.
Q2: Can these help me achieve my goal in any way (instead of creating some bridges between JAVA and MT4 DLL's)?
A0: yes, forget straight about REST and synchronous, blocking chains in FX-trading domain
A1: well, not a typical way. MetaTrader Server is a proprietary suite of systems on the Broker-side and theirs API are not disclosed to allow some 3rd party integrations against.
A2: FIX-Protocol is the industry standard LP-interfacing lingua franca. In case you have contracted relations with your institutional trading provider, incl. the FIX-Protocol GWY-port, this may provide you an A-level access to the Market and to integrate your trading tools against. If this is the case, forget about MT4 instrumentation, as prime-time cadences are far beyond the MT4 Terminal localhost processing architecture ( multiple events with a sub-millisecond TimeDOMAIN resolution are common, whereas MQL4 does not provide any direct support for multithreaded-concurrent / better parallel programme scheduling designs ). FIX-Protocol events are simply off-the picture above, being far left, "before" the graph starts from 1st [ms] column.
ZeroMQ may help liberate your further designs from MQL4 limitations. May like to read my other posts on distributed systems, where MQL4 / ZeroMQ / ML-AI-predictors / GPU-processing infrastructures appear.
Anyway:
Enjoy the Wild Worlds of MQL4/MQL5
Interested? May also like reading other MQL4, ZeroMQ distributed processing and low-latency trading posts
You can try MetaApi https://metaapi.cloud cloud service which provides REST API and WebSocket API access to both MetaTrader 4 and MetaTrader 5 accounts.
Official REST API documentation: https://metaapi.cloud/docs/client
SDKs: https://metaapi.cloud/sdks (javascript, python and Java SDKs are provided as per April 2021)
It supports reading account information, positions, orders, trade history, receiving quotes, and accessing market data.
The service also provides copy trading API https://metaapi.cloud/docs/copyfactory and API to calculate forex trading metrics on a MetaTrader account https://metaapi.cloud/docs/metastats.
I started to code an expert with MQL5, naturally on MT5 platform, and I must admit that the difficulty of managing the application along with the increase of its complexity is high. It's not only due to a missing garbage collector, that of course imposes the deletion of the new instances, but also because Java offers a set of powerful data structures and syntax that MQL5 naturally doesn't have. Last but not least, talking about the community and the third party libraries available, there's a light year of the distance between Java and MQL5. I.e. if I need to find a library for a JSON conversion on the Java side I find dozens of official and stable versions, in the MQL5 community I have found only rubbish that I had to modify myself.
So, after numerous failed tries on coding my expert in MQL5 (not a simple one of course), I decided to adopt a radical approach: coding an application, client-side MQL5, and server-side Java, that provides a Java facade for the MT5 platform. Same API, same basic events and so on. Even though I thought more than once that I was getting stuck in a blind path, I kept coding and eventually, I made it, obtaining a really solid result.
Naturally, the REST interface drastically reduces the performances, and each request, even with Tomcat and MT5 running in the same localhost, is in the order of milliseconds, not micros, but on the other side this reduces only the suitability of this architecture, it doesn't make it useless at all.
Strategies like scalpelling and every kind of high-frequency trading are not good for such kind of scenario, vice-versa every other strategy in the longer period, even if intraday's ones, can be implemented successfully without any cons.
Last but not least, it isn't necessary to use the WebRequest() MQL5 method to call any Servlet container, it is possible to import the wininet.dll from the OS (talking about Windows) and the strategy tester will work as if the strategy has been coded in MQL5, maybe just a little bit slower.
To sum up, I wouldn't be so sarcastic on the Java facade approach for the FX trading platforms, citing only the nude performances without contextualizing the overall scenario is a naive approach to face the argument.
If you need to send/receive synchronous message between MT4 and Java application, REST would be the best approach because fast response matters in this scenario. Message Queue solutions like ZeroMQ fits better in asynchronous solutions, so it won't help you. Once you choose REST approach, you can use MQL4 WebRequest() to call your Java application.
WebRequest isn't the end of the world, you can submit http requests from your EA using API, works even with Strategy Tester.
In order to collect the tick information and open, update or close orders, you can use mt4 server api.
please check this url.
http://mtapi.online/#overlappable-4
Maybe you will find what you want.
And then I have also mt4 server api. If you have any questions please update me.
I am thinking to work on a programming problem for which, I suppose, I will need to know a lot of advanced programming concepts. For some reasons I have decided to code it in Java - even though I am not proficient in it.
So I want you to help me with suggestions, guidance, pointers to resources, books, tutorials or any generic advises that you think is pertinent.
Here is the basic nature of my problem:
I need to create a client-server architecture. Server supports multiple concurrent clients. Clients send it simple instructions (may be server exposes some kind of API/ runs listener on specific port), server executes the instructions and send result back to client.
The main job of the server is to do huge volume of data processing based on the instructions given to it. It takes data from backend database/ file systems. Data volume can easily surge up to ~ 200GB - 700GB. Data will be usually streamed to it, but it may require to hold huge volume of data in memory cache during processing (and if RAM is not enough, then page it to disk). Computations are generally numerically intensive in nature (let's say taking the inverse of a matrix)
The server should be able to do multithreading (I don't know what this term mean in Java, what I wish is, the server should be able to distribute the job in multiple parallel sub-processes.)
The server itself should be very lightweight. I Do NOT need any GUI Interface.
It will be great if I design it in a way so that I can integrate it later with HPC frameworks like Hadoop.
Now if I got to do this, what kind of programming do I need to learn? By the way, I have good understanding on OOP, I am somewhat familiar with Data Structures and algorithms, I know basic Java (never done any network or multithreaded programming in Java before, but have used typical oop concepts, generics, comparable interfaces etc.). I basically work in database programming, but have also done lot of C, C++, C#, Python in the past.
Given the requirement and my background, please suggest,
How should I begin to work on this project? What is the way to architect the project?
Should I create some basic API definitions first and then start working on the details?
Should I follow any particular design pattern? Where to learn them from?
What are the things I need to learn in Java and where to learn them from?
What is the best way to read huge data in memory? Is Java nio good solution?
If I instantiate a class with huge amount of data, would it work? (example, let's say I have a Vector class to represent a matrix with millions of elements and the constructor of the class reads huge data set in the memory). What's the best way to handle that?
You will want to define how the client and server will talk to eachother. The easiest way is to use established protocols such as HTTP by creating REST services that the client can call without much coding.
Most frameworks that support HTTP create several listeners that run in different threads. This gives you multi threading out of the box.
I'd suggest looking into I prefer Spring Controllers. Spring is fairly light weight.
If you want to use these frameworks, you will want to quickly find, and incorporate them into your application for compilation and packaging.
I would suggest looking into Maven for this. It's a big time saver. In particular using archetypes to create your project's folder structure, and auto download dependencies, and their dependencies.
Finally my words of wisdom. Ensure your services are singleton stateless services. This means you only create the objects once, and each thread uses the same objects. There is lots less garbage collection happening. This makes a huge difference when processing large amounts of requests.
Be careful not to use class level variables to hold state, in these services. If you do, different threads will over write each others data.
First thing I would like to say that as per your explanation of the things you seem to be in a pretty good shape to use java as your server side language.
The kind of client server architecture you choose may depend on what kind of clients actually you are serving to. Would they be typical GUI or CUI based desktop clients or the web clients.
In the latter case you could use Spring Framework in a normal fashion and for the former one you could go further to explore Spring's support for Restful Web services. I would advise not to go with socket or TCP based networking solutions or use java networking.
Spring's RESTful API gives you a very cool abstraction over things like networking and multi threading even for a desktop based client. In case of a desktop client you can use JSON/XML as response and can use HttpClient library for making calls to server, which is a very cool abstraction of the underlying networking stuff.
Further up Spring's design patterns follow a very linear flow of data. A lot of your fundamental design considerations are catered by the Spring itself using Dependency Injection and Inversion of Control which are extremely simple to incorporate.
For a detailed analysis of design patterns related to specific requirements I would suggest you to read the book called Java Design Patterns: A Tutorial of Addison Wesley publications and the author is James W. Cooper.
One more thing about the API design. It would be preferable for you to first create a API specification and then go further to implement them.
This is a general "noob" question about software design, so I apologise if it seems vague,
but I would really appreciate the advice. Note the system described below is purely an example, not a specific product I have in mind.
I often have a need to combine the functionality of several libraries or utilities, written in different languages. For example, if I want to code a high-performance audio processing application for the desktop, I will write it in C / C++. Then, I want to add a nice GUI. But I don't want to learn Qt. I like the look and feel of Adobe Air, and would like to use that. Later, I have a need to access a USB device. But the USB library I have only has an API in Java. How can I combine all these elements together, to take advantage of their relative strengths?
Clearly, I cannot compile these various elements into one single executable. So I need to create and run them seperately, and give them a means to communicate. The most common way to do this seems to be using IPC (Inter Process Communication), eg shared memory or sockets. I prefer the idea of sockets, as the programs could potentially run on seperate machines on a network.
So I decide to create a local client / server system, with a custom API, to allow these elements to communicate. For example, the Air application will receive a message from the C application, telling it to update it's UI. The USB application running in Java will use the sockets to stream audio from the USB hardware, into the C application.
My question : is using local sockets in this way a typical way to design such a system?
Will the performance be much worse than a truly native application (e.g. everything in Java or C, in a single executable) ? It also seems likely that such an approach would be prone to bugs, and difficult to maintain?
I frequently find myself coming up against the limits of existing software libraries (e.g. a graphics library with a pretty, flexible UI but no way to access low-level hardware, or a media library that can mix many audio streams, but has no support for video playback), and find it very frustrating. If anyone could advise the best way to combine arbitrary software libraries like this, I would really appreciate it.
Thanks in advance!
As you have correctly identified, combining libraries from different language or platforms is hard. There are several ways to do it, but none are ideal. Examples:
Native call interfaces (e.g. JNI / JNA) - very fast but tricky to make work correctly, and you have the problem that the data types used typically don't map cleanly across different platforms. Adds native dependencies.
Socket based IPC with text protocol (XML, JSON, etc) - works OK and common formats are likely to be supported at both ends, but adds a lot of overhead. Can be a pain to maintain custom schema mappings etc.
Socket based IPC with binary protocol (e.g. Google protocol buffers) - quite efficient, needs a lot of work to get a custom protocol working correctly on both ends
Communication via a 3rd system (e.g. database, message queue, filesystem) - lots of overhead, can get fragile, introduces a major dependency on a 3rd system.
In my experience, it usually isn't worth integrating a new language / platform just to get one specific library or feature. Take your user interface example - no matter how nice Adobe Air looks, I doubt it is worth trying to integrate it with an existing C/C++ application.
Even if you get it to work, it will significantly complicate the future maintenance and devlopment of your application. Builds become more complex. You need to maintain additional communication / "glue" code. You need to manage more dependencies. Your users will get hit by many more configuration issues. Testing becomes more difficult. It becomes harder to teach someone new about how the whole system works. You need to maintain your skills in more languages / frameworks etc.
I'd recommend the following strategy:
Pick a primary platform
Whenever you need a new library or feature, look for something on your primary platform first. Hopefully (usually?) there is something good available - but even if not then it might be worth coding something yourself if the requirement is quite small.
Only if there is no reasonable option on the primary platform, then you can start to think about integrating a new language/platform
In terms of primary platform, I'd normally suggest a JVM language like Java, Scala or Clojure since the JVM is very well engineered, offers great performance, is highly portable and has the largest / most cohesive library ecosystem (most of which is open source). The JVM is therefore probably the best "general purpose" choice unless you have some very specific requirement which is unlikely to be possible on the JVM, e.g.:
If you are doing lots of embedded / realtime / systems programming wthat requires hardware access you probably need to go for C/C++
If you are coding purely for web-based clients, you probably want to use JavaScript (if you are also writing code on the server side you can consider JavaScript code generation frameworks/libraries that can work on the JVM, e.g. Vaadin or ClojureScript)
the answer is pretty much depends on the technologies you're using and there is no silver-bullet solution for this.
In general, this solutions will fall into one of the following categories:
Some interprocess communication techniques
Integrations provided by the language/platform itself
Database/some common storage (even files :) )
Example of the first:
Sockets/pipes/whatever you operating system allows.
CORBA - allows to write distributed code in different languages.
Google protobuf - allows serialization/deserialization of data-objects and its language agnostic
For the second it really depends on language/ecosystem you're using.
Examples for java:
JNI - Java Native interface - allow to execute code (dlls/so) outside the JVM.
JCA - if you're in the enterprise environment - you can write the integration with the legacy systems in this.
For languages that are compiled into the native code its less tricky - you can write and compile some code, say in Pascal, and then use the DLL in C.
Sometimes when we're talking about Java there is a plethora of languages that have their own syntax and compiler, but their compiler compiles into java binary code that can be run inside the jvm. So if your solution is based on these languages the integration will be easier. Languages like Scala, Groovy, Closure, Jython and so on are falling into this category.
The last but not the least technology to be mentioned is Web Services. This is a very popular tool for integration of different system, although its more used in enterprise environment.
Basically its an abstraction over the sockets layer that allows to send data objects in XML/JSON format between the processes/servers. Both of XML and JSON are language agnostic, so its not an issue to create an XML in a program written in C++ and then consume it in JAVA.
Hope this helps
I am developing an client-server application where client gets updates every second (lets say 1000 fields) . I also need to draw waveforms from at client side.Server is already existing.
For this type of application which will be better ? GWT with intermediate server or Java Web Start which directly connects to existing server in terms of performance, difficulty to code ?
I don't see that much difference among them. I'd even say that they are separate things. Webstart is how your client will get the app: from some site.
Webstart is a bit easier to mantain, since your client will get it everytime it starts.
Deploying a stand-alone can be a bit harder, depending on your infrastructure.
Performance: just the "download" part of the webstart can be a bit heavier. I thinkg performance is almost the same, after ir began to execute.
Difficulty to code: it's just a matter of experience. Your code in both them will be almost the same, since they'll do the same things.
Mantain / upgrade : easier to mantain and upgrade the Webstart than installing a client on each machine.
Consider using a JFreeChart DynamicTimeSeriesCollection, seen here, distributed via java-web-start. A thousand fields in a scroll pane is possible, but JList or JTable would be considerably more efficient.
If the server already exists, the issue is more about the best way to connect it to the client, than whether or not to use GWT. For example, if you want server-push rather than client-pull for the updates, that changes things somewhat. However, assuming you need to do some vector graphics, and pull information from a server (I'll assume that you can use either JSON or XML to get server information), you could use several different JavaScript toolkits to do this directly, without Java or GWT needed at all.
For this type of application, Dojo would be one fair option. It has fairly good portable vector graphics, it's pure JavaScript and it is finally at a stage where documentation is OK. GWT would be a useful bet if the server didn't already exist, and where you wanted a decent set of controls usable on the client side. But for rich graphics, I'd look at JavaScript options like Dojo, Raphael, or even jQuery. Dojo does support line charts, and that might be a good basis for waveforms.
Some of this depends on the nature of the server. If it uses a different protocol from HTTP, or doesn't really provide easy JSON or XML access, you're probably better looking at a client-server package that does make the bridge between client and server simple.
GWT might be an option here, but it is designed more for robustness than for very fast development. And if you are fitting with an existing protocol, it could be a fair amount of work.
I have read a few articles mentioning converters from one language to another.
I'm a bit more than skeptical about the use of such kind of tools. Does anyone know or have experiences let's say about Visual Basic to Java or vs converters? Just one example to pick
http://www.tvobjects.com/products/products.html, claims to be the "world leader" or so in that aspect, However if read this:
http://dev.mysql.com/tech-resources/articles/active-grid.html
There the author states:
"The consensus of MySQL users is that automated conversion tools for MS Access do not work. For example, tools that translate existing Access applications to Java often result in 80% complete solutions where finishing the last 20% of the work takes longer than starting from scratch."
Well we know we need 80% of the time to implement the first 80% functionality and another 80% of the time for the other 20 %....
So has anyone tried such tools and found them to be worthwhile?
Tried? No, actually built (more than one) language convertor.
Here's one I (and my coworkers) built for the B2 Spirit Stealth Bomber to convert the mission software, coded in a legacy language, JOVIAL, into maintainable C code, with 100% automated conversion. One of the requirements was that we were NOT allowed to see the actual source code. No joke.
You are right: if you get only a medium high conversion rate (e.g., 70-80%), the effort to finish the conversion is still very significant if indeed you can do it at all. We target 95%+ and do better when told to try harder as was the case for the B2. The only reason people accept medium high rate converters is because they can't find (or won't fund!) a better one, insist on starting now, and accept the fact that converting it this way may be painful (usually they don't know how much) but is in fact less painful than rebuilding it from scratch. (I happen to agree with this assessment: in general, projects that try to recode a large system from scratch usually fail and conversions using medium high conversion rate tools don't have as high a failure rate.)
There are lots of bad conversion tools out there, something slapped together with a mountain of PERL code doing regexes on text strings, or some YACC-based parser with code generation essentially one-to-one for each statement in the compilation unit. The former are built by people who had a conversion dropped on them out of the sky. The latter are often built by well-intentioned engineers that don't have decent compiler background.
For a singularly bad example, see my response to this SO question about COBOL migration: Experience migrating legacy Cobol/PL1 to Java, which is exactly a direct statement translator... producing the stuff that gave rise to the term "JOBOL".
To get such high-accuracy conversion rates, you need high-quality parsers, and means to build high-quality translation rules that preserve semantics, and optimize for target-language properties and special cases. In essence, you need what amounts to configurable compiler technology. The reason we succeed, IMHO, is our DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit, which was designed to do this job. (I'm the architect; check out my SO icon/bio).
Lots of careful testing helps, too.
DMS "knows" what the compiler knows about code, by virtue of having a compiler-like front end for the language of interest, and having the ability to build ASTs, symbol tables, control and data flows, call graphs. It uses much of the compiler technology that the compiler community spent the last half-century inventing, because that stuff has been proven to be useful in translation!
DMS knows more than most compilers know, because it can read/analyze/transform the entire application at once; most compilers stick to single compilation units. Thus one can code translation rules that depend on the entire application as opposed to just the current statement. We often add problem- or application-specific knowledge to improve the translation. This often shows up when converting special features of a language, or calls on libraries, where one must recognize the library calls as special idioms, and translate them to calls on compositions of target libraries and language constructs.
This capability is used to build translators (e.g., the JOVIAL translator), or domain-specific code generators.
More often we build complex automated software engineering tools that solve problems specific to customers, such as program analysis tools (dead code, duplicate code, style-broken code, metrics, architecture extraction, ...), and mass change tools (platform [not langauge] migrations, data layer insertion, API replacement, ...)
It seems to me, as is almost always the case with MS-ACCESS questions having tags that attract the wider StackOverflow population, that the people answering are missing the key question here, which I read as:
Are there any tools that can successfully convert an Access application to any other platform?
And the answer is
ABSOLUTELY NOT
The reason for that is simply that tools in the same family that use similar models for the UI objects (e.g., VB6) lack so many things that Access provides by default (how do you convert an Access continuous subform to VB6 and not lose functionality?). And other platforms don't even share the same core model as VB6 and Access, so those have even more hurdles to clear.
The cited MySQL article is quite interesting, but it really confuses the problems that come with incompetently-developed apps vs. the problems that come with the development tools being used. A bad data schema is not inherent to Access -- it's inherent to [most] novice database users. But the articles seems to attribute this problem to Access.
And entirely overlooks the possibility of fixing the schema, upsizing it to MySQL and keeping the front end in Access, which is by far the easiest approach to the problem.
This is exactly what I expect from people who just don't get Access -- they don't even consider that Access as front end to a securable, large-capacity server database engine can be a superior solution to the problem.
That article doesn't even really consider conversion of an Access app, and there's good reason for that. All the tools that I've seen that claim to convert Access applications (to whatever platform) either convert nothing but data (in which case they don't convert the app at all -- morons!), or convert the front end structure slavishly, with a 1:1 correspondence between UI objects in the Access application and in the target app.
This doesn't work.
Access's application design is specific to itself, and other platforms don't support the same set of features. Thus, there has to be translation of Access features into a working substitute for the original feature in the converted application. This is not something that can be done in an automated fashion, in my opinion.
Secondly, when contemplating converting an Access app for deployment in the web browser, the whole application model is different, i.e., from stateful to stateless, and so it's not just a matter of a few Access features that are unsupported, but of a completely different fundamental model of how the UI objects interact with the data. Perhaps a 100% unbound Access app could be relatively easily be converted to a browser-based implementation, but how many of those are there? It would mean an Access app that uses no subforms whatsoever (since they can't be unbound), and an app that uses only a handful of events from the rich event model (most of which work only with bound forms/controls). In short, a 100% unbound Access app would be one that fights against the whole Access development paradigm. Anyone who thinks they want to build an unbound app in Access really shouldn't be using Access in the first place, as the whole point of Access is the bound forms/controls! If you eliminate that, you've thrown out the majority of Access's RAD advantage over other development platforms, and gained almost nothing in return (other than enormous code complexity).
To build an app for deployment in the web browser that accomplishes the same tasks as an Access applications requires from-the-ground-up redesign of the application UI and workflow. There is no conversion or translation that will work because the successful Access application model is antithetical to the successful web application model.
Of course, all of this changes with Access 2010 and Sharepoint Server 2010 with Access Services. In that case, you can build your app in Access (using web objects) and deploy on Sharepoint for users to run it in the browser. The results are functionally 100% equivalent (and 90% visually), and run on all browsers (no IE-specific dependencies here).
So, starting this June, the cheapest way to convert an Access app for deployment in the browser may very well be to upgrade to A2010, convert the design to use all web objects, and then deploy with Sharepoint. That's not a trivial project, as Access web objects have a limited set of features in comparison to client objects (and no VBA, for instance, so you have to learn the new macros, which are much more powerful and safe than the old ones, so that's not the terrible hardship it may seem for those familiar with Access's legacy macros), but it would likely be much less work than a full-scale redesign for deployment on the web.
The other thing is that it won't require any retraining for end users (insofar as the web-object version is the same as the original client version), as it will be the same in the Access client as in the web browser.
So, in short, I'd say conversion is a chimera, and almost always not worth the effort. I'm agreeing with the cited sentiment, in fact (even if I have a lot of problems with the other comments from that source). But I'd also caution that the desire for conversion is often misguided and misses out on cheaper, easier and better solutions that don't require wholesale replacement of the Access app from top to bottom. Very often the dissatisfaction with Jet/ACE as data store confuses people into thinking they have to replace the Access application as well. And it's true that many user-developed Access apps are filled with terrible, unmaintainable compromises and are held together with chewing gum and bailing wire. But a badly-designed Access application can be improved in conjunction with the back-end upsizing andrevision of the data schema -- it doesn't have to be discarded.
That doesn't mean it's easy -- it's very often not. As I tell clients all the time, it's usually easier to build a new house than to remodel an old one. But one of the reasons we remodel old houses is because they have irreplaceable characteristics that we don't want to lose. It's very often the case that an Access app implicitly includes a lot of business rules and modelling of workflows that should not be lost in a new app (the old Netscape conundrum, pace Joel Spolsky). These things may not be obvious to the outside developer trying to port to a different platform, but for the end user, if the app produces results that are off by a penny in comparison to the old app, they'll be unhappy (and probably should be, since it may mean that other aspects of the app are not producing reliable results, either).
Anyway, I've rambled on for too long, but my opinion is that conversion never works except for the most trivial apps (or for ones that were designed to be converted, e.g., a 100% unbound Access app). I'm all for revision in place of replacment.
But, of course, that's how I make my living, i.e., fixing Access apps.
A couple of issues that effect the success or failure of cross-language conversion are the relative semantic richness of the languages, and their semantic models.
Translation from C++ to C should be relatively easy, but translation of C to idiomatic C++ would be next to impossible because that would be next to impossible to automatically turn a procedural program into an OO program.
Translation of Java to C would be relatively simple, though handling storage management would be messy. Translation of C into Java would be next to impossible if the C program did funky pointer arithmetic or casting between integers and different kinds of pointer.
Translation of a functional language to an imperative language would be much easy though the result would probably be inefficient, an non-idiomatic. Translation of an imperative language to a functional language is probably beyond the state of the art .... unless you implement an interpreter for the imperative language in the functional language.
What this means is that some translators are necessarily going to be more successful than others in terms of:
completeness and accuracy of translation, and
readability and maintainability of the resulting code.
Things You Should Never Do, Part I by Joel Spolsky
"....They did it by making the single worst strategic mistake that any software company can make:
They decided to rewrite the code from scratch."
I have a list of MS Access converters on my website. I've never heard anything good about any of them in any postings in the Access related newsgroups I read on a daily basis. And I read a lot of postings on a daily basis.
Also note that there is a significant amount of functionality in Access, such as bound continuous forms or subforms, that is more work to reproduce in other systems. Not necessarily a lot of work but more work. And more troubles when it comes time to distribute and install the app.
I've used an automated converter from C# to Visual Basic.NET. It worked pretty well except for adding some unnecessary If True statements.
I've also attempted to use Shed Skin to convert Python-to-C++, but it didn't work because of its lack of support for new-style division.
I've used tools for converting a VB6 Project into VB.Net - which you would hope would be perhaps one of the simpler examples of this sort of thing. My experience was that everything had to be checked, in fine detail, and half the stuff was missing / wrong.
Certainly I would recommend a migration by hand, or depending on the language you're targetting, I would consider a complete rewrite if this gives you a chance to make major improvements to your codebase.
Martin
I have only tried free and basic paid for converters. But the main problem is that it is very very hard to have confidence that the conversion is entirely successful.
Usually they are best used to hand convert code section at a time, where you review each piece of code. Often in my experience a rewrite instead of a conversion turns out to be a better option.