Voluntary certification of programmers in the Work service - page 13
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're such a fucking joke.
You would never organise anything yourself, even if it was to your advantage in the end.
No compromises. Everybody's an enemy. Not a square inch of your own land.
There is no point in quarrelling any further, you can't do the certification on the side, and the MKs don't want to do it.
We'll die without certification.
:) as long as it's a good person.
_______
Let's talk about villagers. Or pikes. You can have your pick.
Well, let's make a separate point:
1. certified mql5 programmer.
2. certified mql5 master user.
You are right.
Separate certification of the knowledge of MQL5 functions, and only the knowledge of their usage. 2.
Separate certification of a trading library with some trading functionality. For example, this is Master from MK.
...3.... Separately other certifications - for working with the Internet, working with databases, etc.
But in none of the attestations - the customers are not protected from the mistakes of the proger.
Leibmotiv of this branch - to protect the customer from lazy proger. And attestation will not fulfil this function.
The leitmotif of this thread is to protect customers from lazy programmers.
The customers protect the interests of the customers. (understandable)
A third party (the administration of the resource) protects the interests of customers. (I see)
Programmers protect the interests of Programmers. (I see).
The third party (administration of the resource) defends the interests of programmers. (understandable, although to some strange)
Customers defend the interests of programmers. (it is not clear and strange)
Programmers protect the interests of customers. (something is wrong here)
Programmers protect customers from Programmers. (very clear).
You say it right.
1. separate certification of knowledge of MQL5 functions.
Separate certification of some trading library with some trading functionality. For example, this is Master from MK.
...3.... Separately other certifications - for working with the Internet, working with databases, etc.
But in none of the attestations - customers are not protected from mistakes of the proger.
Why separate? There should be questions in one questionnaire. You imagine a specialist carpenter - one for screwing in and one for unscrewing.
But what I mean is that people don't know what to evaluate. To certify something in order to save someone from something.
You should start by finding out whether the client needs the proger's certification that much. And who do they need protection from? The proger from the proger or the opinion of customers from progers in general.
Although you don't have to go far. Here the metaquotes write their product. And we find several serious bugs in it every day. So what of it? Shut down Metakvotes or deprive them of the right to charge high prices for their product? Not only them, they find bugs and fix them all the time.
-----------
Motivation is needed in any business and in this certification too.
- Who needs assessment?
- What goals will this "someone" have?
- What they stand to gain and lose
- What advantages or disadvantages it will bring.
- Where is the profit
If these questions are answered, it becomes clear why and how to do it.
It's really hard to imagine a gynaecologist as a car mechanic.
but I mean, people here don't know what to certify. To certify something to save someone from something.
The first thing to consider is whether the client really needs the proger's certification. And who does he need to be protected from? The proger from the proger or the opinion of customers from progers in general.
Although you don't have to go far. Here the metaquotes write their product. And we find several serious bugs in it every day. So what of it? Shut down Metakvotes or deprive them of the right to charge high prices for their product? Not only them, they find bugs and fix them all the time.
-----------
Motivation is needed in any business and in this certification too.
- Who needs it?
- What goals will this "someone" have?
- What they stand to gain and lose
- What privileges or restrictions they will have.
- Where is the profit
If you can answer these questions, then it will become clear why and how to do it.
You can go on like that forever. Everything has been pointed out a long time ago. The starter has made it clear. Protecting the customer from an obvious undercoder.
Then it got all the best wishes. What's the upside? What's the upside? It was originally a relatively simple and doable task, but you programmers are more likely to fight than agree.
This situation reveals a conflict of interest between the "company" and the "customers". The company is interested in promoting the "Jobs" service, and the MC is calling for "all programmers to work", because there are orders. The customers are not satisfied with the quality of the orders. As traffic controllers, MKs do this work through arbitration. To reduce the work in the part of "arbitration" should be pulled up "average programmer" and put a barrier to the work of programmers "of the lowest quality". In my opinion, this is how the problem can be stated.
There are three defining factors: desire, opportunity, need. Traffic management is apparently considered satisfactory at the moment. The question of raising the level of the programmer "in general" is certainly not the task of the MC. But raising the level of "MQL programmer" - is a related task, the solution of which in the future could act as a filter for works coming into arbitration. It is possible to postpone solution to the point when arbitrage can no longer cope with a wave of incompetent tasks. But worse is that the "masses" can get away with "a serious client". This is, of course, my personal view of the problem.
...
If someone cannot understand or imagine something, it is their own problem.
Define your position, for a start. The lack of it is not flexibility of thought, it has another name for it. Thinking flexibility is the ability to look at a situation from different angles while maintaining one position.
Your remarks look like you are arguing with yourself. You can argue with yourself as much as you like, but there is no reason to do it out loud.