Why are there so few experts in the MQL5 database?
A question of reflection. The championship is coming up, the fifth terminal has been available for 3 months now, and there are only! 6! Why are there so few Expert Advisors? At the same time the indicators are quite sufficient.... Why? Is MQL5 so complicated? It's not in demand yet due to its low testability?
Moving on: is MQL5 so good considering MACD_Sample 5 weighs 18.2Kb and 4 weighs 5.6Kb? Is it a progress? Is it the same in three times bigger labor costs? And a small addition directly to MQ: don't you think that to promote 5 and 4 it would be nice to provide some examples of the most simple Expert Advisors of 5 and 4?
I don't know about others, but for me it's not about preparing to the Championship or creating Expert Advisors, or even studying MQL5 documentation, but to understand why "this" or "that" doesn't work the way you want it to, but how... That's how it's not so easy to understand)))) Hard is easy to learn...
In my opinion, you can create Expert Advisors and indicators on MQL4 without any hassle (you don't need any classes, etc.). But if you bother, you'll have to work hard, but the result will be better.
Good luck to all. And let's share the code and ideas.
- www.mql5.com
My opinion - in Five you can create Expert Advisors and indicators without any complications (you can do without classes, etc.) no more complicated than in MQL4.
This is good! Where can I find such a simple example?
And let's share the code and ideas.
Do you want to share? )
................
In my opinion - in Computer 5 you can create Expert Advisors and indicators without any complications (you don't need any classes, etc.) but it will be no more complicated than in MQL4. But it will take some effort, but the result will be much better.
...............
Without the classes, you can create virtually any complexity:
scripts - yes
indicators - yes
But you can't make an expert without classes. Maybe that's why there aren't so many of them in the code base? Most people do not know OOP very well. If I'm wrong, please show me an expert without classes.
A question of reflection. The championship is coming up, the fifth terminal has been available for 3 months now, and there are only! 6! Why are there so few Expert Advisors? At the same time the indicators are quite sufficient.... Why? Is MQL5 so complicated? It's not in demand yet due to its low testability?
Next: is MQL5 so good, considering that the MACD_Sample 5's source code weighs 18.2Kb, while the 4's weighs 5.6Kb? And a small addition directly to MQ: Don't you think that in order to popularize 5 and 4 it would be nice to create some examples of maximally simple Expert Advisors for 5 and 4 to at least make the transition easier for users of 4?
Response-thought, I'll start in order:
1. why should there be more experts in the base than there are now (way there will be even 6)?
2) What do you dislike about the MT5? I do not understand, what does the size of MACD_Sample have to do with it, as well as any other Expert Advisor? If you carefully read the forums (this one and other forums), you will see the developers' opinions about trading systems, attached to the MT5 as examples.
In a nutshell, it would look like this: We didn't try to make a trading system, which isa GRALem. Our task was just to give an example that could clearly illustrate how to work with those innovations, which appeared in MQL5.
I don' t know about the opinion of developers, but in my opinion it won't help popularize MQL5, because "a few examples fully correspond to the simplest experts of 5 and 4".
Not only it won't help, but it will lead to the opposite effect, because then you will have to abandon the great number of innovations that appeared in MQL5.
4 And why make it easy for users to switch from MT4?
Without classes, you can make almost any complexity:
scripts - yes
indicators - yes
But you can't make an Expert Advisor without classes. Maybe that's why there are so few of them in the code base? Most people do not know OOP very well. If I am wrong, please show me an Expert Advisor without classes.
joo:
Without classes, you can make almost any complexity:
scripts - yes
indicators - yes
But you can't make an Expert Advisor without classes. Maybe that's why there are so few of them in the code base? Most people do not know OOP very well. If I am wrong, please show me an Expert Advisor without classes.
Without classes, you can make almost any complexity:
scripts - yes
indicators - yes
But you can't make an Expert Advisor without classes. Maybe that's why there are so few of them in the code base? Most people do not know OOP very well. If I am wrong, please show me an Expert Advisor without classes.
Without classes (and most of the innovations) you can make Expert Advisors, but with one caveat - their "almost any complexity" will be interesting only in comparison with MT4 (they may be faster and more reliable than those implemented in MQL4), but in comparison with Expert Advisors that use all the advantages of MQL5, they will lose dramatically...
PS
What is the point of writing an EA without classes? In fact, you can, in fact, not use standard libraries, and write everything from scratch (I do so, for example). But why reinvent the WHOLE wheel when you can use the standard and publicly available?
There are indicators that you can't make without mql5 capabilities. It's not just about classes. There are many other possibilities of the language, without which you can't create some indicators.
1. why should there be more experts in the base than there are now (there will be even 6 of them)?
The question is rhetorical - it doesn't need an answer.
2) What don't you like about the MT5? I do not understand, what does the size of MACD_Sample have to do with it, as well as any Expert Advisor? If you carefully read the forums (this one and other forums), you will see the developers' comments on trading systems, attached to the MT5 as examples.
There are two Expert Advisors of different complexity, the result of their work is the same, which one is better? Of course the one that is easier, because the probability of error per printed symbol is lower there. Of course this is just a primitive example, but still... If there is no difference why break your fingers more?
I don' t know about the developers' opinion, but in my opinion it won't help to popularize MQL5, because "a few examples fully correspond to the simplest Expert Advisor of 5 and 4".
Not only it won't help, but it will have the opposite effect, because in this case we will have to reject a great number of innovations that appeared in MQL5.
Do you think it is better not to use at all than to use it to the best of your ability? I hope MQ is of a different opinion.
4) And why simplify the transition of users from MT4?
To promote the platform (and this is surely one of MQ's plans) we need its popularization among traders. The main advantage of MQ's development is the availability of autotrading, there will be no autotrading available, there will be no popularity, there will be nothing else. Who is the easiest to promote it to? Certainly among people already familiar with the medium. In their majority, they are still friends with MQL4, because of the complexity of the transition ... The use of custom programmers - not an option (I can say this because of my rather limited experience with MT4).
Z.U. How hard is the transition? So far more than that... My example, technical background, I used to program in perl, asm, foxpro, html, php, and a little bit in C, java, VB. When I got interested, I quickly and easily mastered MQ4 (I wrote my first Expert Advisor on the first day of the acquaintance). But this is the fifth approach, and I've progressed very little.... But maybe I haven't got the hang of it yet:)
The question is rhetorical - it doesn't need an answer.
There are two experts of different complexity, the result of their work is the same, which is better? Of course, the easier one, because there is less chance of error per printed symbol. Of course, this is just a primitive example, but still... If there is no difference, why break your fingers more?
Do you think it's better to not use at all than to use to the best of your ability? I hope MQ is of a different opinion.
To promote the platform (and this is undoubtedly part of MQ's plans) we need to popularize it among traders. The main advantage of MQ's development is the availability of autotrading, there will be no autotrading available, there will be no popularity, there will be nothing else. Who is the easiest to promote it to? Certainly among people already familiar with the medium. In their majority, they are still friends with MQL4, because of the complexity of the transition ... The use of custom programmers - not an option (I can say this because of my rather limited experience with MT4).
Z.U. How hard is the transition? So far more than that... My example, technical background, I used to program in perl, asm, foxpro, html, php, and a little bit in C, java, VB. When I got interested, I quickly and easily mastered MQ4 (I wrote my first Expert Advisor on the first day of the acquaintance). But this is the fifth approach, and I've progressed very little.... But maybe I haven't got the hang of it yet:)
- www.mql5.com
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
You agree to website policy and terms of use
A question of reflection. The championship is coming up, the fifth terminal has been available for 3 months now, and there are only! 6! Why are there so few Expert Advisors? At the same time the indicators are quite sufficient.... Why? Is MQL5 so complicated? It's not in demand yet due to its low testability?
Next: is MQL5 so good, considering that the MACD_Sample 5's source code weighs 18.2Kb, while the 4's weighs 5.6Kb? And a small addition directly to MQ: Don't you think that in order to popularize 5 and 4 it would be nice to provide some examples of fully compliant and simple Expert Advisors of 5 and 4 at least to facilitate the transition for users of 4?