A little surprised :) Thought I'd share and ask a NOT rhetorical question. - page 4
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
The indicator concept itself seems (to me, of course) wrong in the case of a fully automated system. I am telling you this not as a platform developer with 10 years of experience, but as one who has successfully practiced fully automated trading for only 5 years. Roughly speaking, at least all indicators are transferred to the Expert Advisor. No offence, MQL5 Wizard has only one useful thing. Now everyone can be sure that the indicator concept is rubbish, no matter how complex the combinations of indicators may be.
Well, the major technically advanced market participants do not trade using indicators. Because the indicators are kindergarten of the 20th century. Just right for humanitarians and lazy technicians.
Maybe so, but without a comparative analysis it is just words.So you have not learned how to write indicators.
Вопрос к разработчикам:
Советник с индикаторами и тот же самый советник, но с перенесенными индикаторами в его код ("все в одном"), по скорости выполнения в тестере будут отличаться? И в какую сторону?
Скорее всего ответить на этот вопрос однозначно нельзя будет. Но все же прошу как-то более-менее осветить данный вопрос.
Right.
I think anyone would be happy to have an official and open comparison of MT4 and MT5 tester speeds on non-syndicator EAs. That's where we will see the real speed of the tester, and not the brilliant architectural and algorithmic optimization of humanitarians crutches in the form of indicators.
This has already been done, but none of you have provided a sane calculation in the Expert Advisor, not even an um.
Question to the developers:
Will the Expert Advisor with indicators and the same Expert Advisor, but with transferred indicators in its code ("all in one"), be different in terms of speed of execution in the tester? In which direction?
Most likely, there will be no definite answer to this question. But still I ask you to somehow more or less answer this question.
How many times do you need to answer this question to get it across?
Right.
I think anyone would be happy to have an official and open comparison of MT4 and MT5 tester speeds on non-syndicator EAs. That's where the real speed of the tester will be seen, not the great architectural and algorithmic optimization of crutches-humanitarians in the form of indicators.
We have different approaches. You - the platform developer. I'm an "advanced" MTS-nik. Who are your clients mainly? - DC and humanitarian traders (+ lazy technicians). They are the ones you rely on in your developments, which is correct. In my case my client is the market. And the indicator concept applied to the market is nonsense. You are fed by your clients. I am fed by mine. Both are right.
From my point of view, it is not good for an "advanced" MTS-nickel to reproach developers that they do not create a perfect toolkit for him. They should also ask for money. Everyone is doing what he needs to do.
Basic indicators are implementations of mathematical statistics methods. Many traders use them.
And not just in forex. These methods are used everywhere.
Have you invented something fundamentally new, different from matstat?
The reason is that many traders use them, but what to do with tons of people who out of their stupidity use the mate stats in trading?
Question to the developers:
Will the Expert Advisor with indicators and the same Expert Advisor, but with transferred indicators in its code ("all in one"), be different in terms of speed of execution in the tester? In which direction?
Most likely, there will be no definite answer to this question. But nevertheless I ask you to somehow more or less elucidate this question.
Question to the developers:
Will the Expert Advisor with indicators and the same Expert Advisor, but with transferred indicators in its code ("all in one"), be different in terms of speed of execution in the tester? In which direction?
Most likely, there will be no definite answer to this question. But still I'm asking you to somehow more or less answer this question.
A properly written economic indicator is better to be used internally, rather than being added to the Expert Advisor's code.
The transfer in the expert code usually means that the extremely custom method of optimizing calculations will be implemented, when the main amount of calculations is discarded and 300 bars of history (for example) are left. In most cases, it will introduce errors, but the author usually does not pay attention to them. Unexpectedly, in the real work it may turn out that the base indicator and its reduced copy in the Expert Advisor do not coincide.
To test the speed of testers with the publication of the full report with the obligatory detailed instructions on the reproduction of the tests, everyone can do it themselves.
Even if so, fine, keep using it, but then what to do with a lot of people who out of their dementia still use the mat. stat on forex?
It's the same as before. I can't understand what's gotten so agitated?
There hasn't been a single critical word on my part towards the developers in this thread. On the contrary, in defense.
The question was posed to the developers, who, more than anyone else, are competent to answer it, as it directly relates to the MT architecture.
It's the same as before. I can't understand what's gotten so agitated?
There hasn't been a single critical word on my part towards the developers in this thread. On the contrary, in defense.
The question was posed to the developers, who, more than anyone else, are competent to answer it, because it is directly related to the MT architecture.
Like a saint and his right hand doesn't know what his left hand is doing at the time?
It's the same as before. I can't understand what's gotten so agitated?
There hasn't been a single critical word on my part towards the developers in this thread. On the contrary, in defense.
The question was posed to the developers who, more than anyone else, are competent to answer it, because it is directly related to the MT architecture.
A correctly written parsimonious indicator is better to use internally, not to put into the EA code.
What is meant is still a sparingly written translation of the indicator into an EA with completely identical results.
Transferring it into the Expert Advisor's code usually means that we will implement an extremely custom method of optimizing calculations, when the main amount of calculations is discarded and 300 bars of history are left (for example).
Quite right, there will be much more opportunities for algorithmic optimization in the all-in-one variant. But it is fair to say that algorithmic optimization is much longer to implement than a quick and easy indicator call. It all depends on the task. If the speed of optimization is very important, it is better to move indicators to the Expert Advisor's code, and then conduct additional algorithmic optimization.
Everyone can test the speed of testers and publish a complete report with detailed instructions for reproducing the tests.