Rules under Work - page 16
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
I have always posted the source code.
But if you are so concerned about this issue, you can soon benefit from a simple scheme:
At the conclusion of the work contract (when you know the exact amount of the order) stipulate that you have to buy
plug-in modules you need that you published in the shop. And the source code of the executed TOR you posted.
The cost of the libraries is discounted accordingly.
Although you can ask MQ to finalize the payment system, so that the money from the order could buy something in the shop (I mean that the customer gets on the recommendation of the contractor, or the contractor on behalf of the customer). The main thing is that the customer can then update the purchase.
So why complicate things, negotiate additional purchases and refine the payment system, when a simple checkbox "Sources" on the application form solves all issues before the negotiation stage. This solves all the confusion and waste of time. And you will not be disturbed by someone for whom this is not acceptable. The thing is, my system is too deeply integrated with each other to put up separate modules. No problem, I can of course attach the signal module (or the one in the application) to the ex-file, just to make the logic of execution clear.
As long as there is no automatic code update in the service (as declared in the shop) it's all rubbish.
The customer should get a working program, not a working one until the next build update. No executor will make sure that all executed orders are compiled in the latest build.
So why complicate things, negotiate additional purchases and refine the payment system, if a simple checkbox "Sources" on the application solves all the issues even before the negotiation stage.
So why complicate things, negotiate additional purchases, refine the payment system, if a simple checkbox "Sources" in the application, solves all the issues even before the stage of negotiation. This solves all the confusion and waste of time. And you will not be disturbed by someone for whom this is not acceptable. The thing is, my system is too deeply integrated with each other to put up separate modules. No problem, I can of course attach the signal module (or the one in the application) to the ex-file. just so that the execution logic is clear.
Just out of interest, try to describe here the lobotomized down-and-out customer who needs this tick.
It's the market, it doesn't matter what you want, it doesn't matter what the customer wants, all that matters is what you agree on.
1% of customers would give in to the checkmark by ordering a script for a one time use, for example to collect some statistics on the history
so they may just answer the question once and forget about this question and the script.
The others will need the ordered program for a long time, in any case, they certainly think so.
And then, any service, any shop should be outrageously simple, understandable, convenient and reliable with a minimum number of clicks
Alexei, consider that this checkbox is already there. On all the orders.
There you go. Thank God we've come to something.)) And about autocompilation, too. Okay, I give up, I'm not going to argue. I don't have a lot of supporters here. Maybe later life will make me return to this subject. After all, not always the customer gets the source code, especially if you look at it not in terms of mql, but software development in general...
Thank you all for the discussion.
Integer:
Everyone has the right to be mistaken. The reason is stated earlier.
Every Ivan Susanin has the right to be wrong, every engineer has the right to be wrong, every sniper has the right to miss, every pilot or driver has the right to crash, every salesman has the right to overcharge his customer, every electrician has the right to measure voltage, every trader has the right to be colmargin. Somehow the right to be wrong seems absurd.
Comment on the highlighted: with this approach you have a great opportunity to reflect on the postulate "Every judge has a right to be wrong". And then apply that postulate to your own life experience.
And if you take into account that each of us periodically plays the role of a judge in solution of his or her problems, you'll get a good chance to make sure that in "my case" (I mean in yours) the postulate looks absurd :) Or almost absurd :)
Hundreds of people are frozen in a stupor until the issue of unclear rights to unclear things is resolved. And only the bot generates virtual orders and their execution in the "Jobs" service.
What is the problem with admitting the obvious?
I don't have many supporters here. Maybe life will bring me back to this topic later.
It's not about the number of supporters. You can be one against all and still be right.
The essential points raised in your thread have been discussed. The solutions to the situation have been discussed. And provocations - how many of them will be on our ... way! :)
Thank you all for the discussion.
Couldn't help but comment :)
It's not about the number of supporters. You can be one against all and still be right.
The essential points raised in your thread have been discussed. The solutions to the situation have been discussed. And provocations - how many of them will be on our ... way! :)
Couldn't refrain from commenting :)