Errors, bugs, questions - page 1574
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
You are doing reverse-engineering. The work is useful to improve the compiler, but from the point of view of practical programming is not applicable. I do not know any programmer who would use the code given by you in practice:
One "psychoanalyst" here diagnoses me, the other ascribes reverse engineering.
Just admit that you are still far away from my level.
Here is where the errors come from (if you still have the ability to listen and not think for others). If the code is simplified a hundredfold and impersonal to localize an abstract error, it does not mean that it is practically useless.
Forum on trading, automated trading systems and trading strategies testing
Errors, Bugs, Questions
Vladimir Pastushak, 2016.05.03 14:47
If you do not know how to solve this problem, you may solve it by yourself, or you may not know what to do with it. Just in passing an experienced programmer can check and other methods and ways to identify a common bug.
By the way, it is very good that there are experienced progamers who can find the bug and report it. Otherwise, when you stumble on a bug, you have to wait long time to fix it. (Long=next build)
I told you that it's a big project, the total size of all the sources is about 1 Mb. How can I show you the lags? Should I send you all the codes? You understand that's impossible. And compilation of separate pieces is of course much faster.
And what do you mean by "unsubstantiated claims"? That your optimizing compiler is much slower? And that you don't care about it? What's unsubstantiated about it?
Verbatim when you don't back up what you're saying with your own evidence.
You even cited an alien picture although you could have attached your own compilation log (not a picture).
As I told above, I wasn't able to test it on the latest build (April 22nd) because I had some bugs during compilation. But I assume that the compilation speed is the same slow there, since you haven't announced acceleration of the compiler in the new build anywhere.
If the compiler shows bugs in the code, you should believe it.
And if you don't believe it, you should upload the compilation log to the forum for parsing. There are errors and compile time there too.
1) I wonder what kind of constructs you used that are not in my code? The size of my code is many thousands of lines and your constructs are missing? It must be something super unique?
2) Actually, the previous build actually had an internal commpiler error occurring when classes refer to each other. It was a bug of the developers but they fixed it. I cannot recall any other errors.
Dear fellow, why all this rubbish? Am I a telepath to know which constructs are in your code and which are not? For instance, I have already pointed to the previous pages of this thread where the man had cited his constructs leading to errors that obviously occurred in his projects.And I had other constructions that also cause defects. I don't want to search for them and avoid them, I'm fed up with it.Well, while you haven't encountered such constructs - so what of it? Everyone writes in his own way. So let's not measure everything by ourselves.
I had an internal compiler error too, but there was some other reason, but that's not the point. Bugs occur all the time, that's what I'm talking about.
Just admit that you are still a long way from my level.
For example, I have already pointed you to the previous pages of this thread, where the man cited his designs leading to bugs that were obviously encountered in his projects...
What does this"activated at price" line mean?
order #1756314005 buy limit 0.24 AUDJPY at 81.04 activated at price 81.04
What does this"activated at price" line mean?
order #1756314005 buy limit 0.24 AUDJPY at 81.04 activated at price 81.04
Flooding is what you are doing here. Specifically, where are your error-prone constructs? So far we see A100 constructs only, which you are referring to.
You are just really not in the loop and are obviously incompetent. If I cite these constructs to you, you will get the same nonsense as you are with A100, saying that these empty abstract constructs have no sense.
You see, you have no idea, what A100 had to do to find error-prone places in code (sometimes very hard to catch), abstract them from other code, removing unnecessary stuff, renaming variables, classes etc., and finally provide everything in a very visual form. Or what did you think, just copying the problematic piece of code was enough?
So, once again, I hats off to A100 for his patience. I'm tired of it myself, it's easier to sit on old build, which works fine, than to search for reasons of bugs in new build, working for service-desk. Or someone will pay me for this work?
In 1241 build (and before) everything worked. I've updated to the latest build, decided to compile my codes and received a heap of red bugs in the log, mostly related to functions templates, and for no apparent reason. I don't have time or desire to rummage through all that, it's easier to roll back. If the developers at least announced in detail ALL of their changes that they made in the new compiler...
If anyone thinks I'm lying, that's your right, but what's the point of me lying?
You have no idea what it took A100 hard work to track down all the places in code that lead to errors (sometimes very hard to catch), abstract them from other code, removing unnecessary stuff, renaming variables, classes etc., and finally provide everything in a very visual form. Or did you think it was enough to just copy the problematic piece of code?
I spent two days almost entirely (at my age it's already a lot), although I had planned to use them in a slightly different way
The magical transformation of a pending order into a market order... )))
Wouldn't believe it, I hadn't read the logs before, but an anomaly happened and I wondered...
Thank you.