Invalid request - just started and can't figure it out... - page 2

[Дмитрий Александрович]

Yedelkin:

Extremely controversial.

The standard library as a 'human-friendly way' - no comments.

I'm surprised, very much so. Reducing the code by times, discarding unnecessary initialisations, I don't see how it can be considered less convenient.

I've seen a bunch of products make their own wrapper functions/methods for buying, selling, closing positions that copy the behaviour of the standard library.
The question is why?

[Renat Fatkhullin]

mrProF:

I'm surprised, very much so. Reducing the code by times, discarding unnecessary initialisations, I don't see how it can be considered less convenient.

That's how he got emotional. There are no arguments.

[Yedelkin]

mrProF: I'm surprised, very much so. Reducing the code by times, discarding unnecessary initialisations, I don't see how it can be considered less convenient.

To get an answer to the highlighted cue it is enough to MUST handle this or that standard trading situation at least once. And then compare it with what you call "code reduction in times".

[Yedelkin]

Renat: That's how his emotions played out. There are no arguments.

Don't jump to conclusions. Especially when you consider the 10-minute delay in responding.

[Renat Fatkhullin]

Yedelkin:
Don't jump to conclusions. Especially when you consider the 10-minute delay in responding.

That is to say, there is no technical argument.

[Дмитрий Александрович]

Yedelkin:
To get a response to a highlighted cue, it's enough to process a standard trading situation on your own at least once. And then compare it to what you call "cutting the code in half".

So what's the difference? Check the market environment? Check, calculate stops, normalise, about to open.

Without standard library - reset structure, fill fields, send request, process response codes (parsing structure). ~ for query building and sending at a guess 10-20 lines.

With standard library - send request by single method call, process response codes (calling CTrade methods). ~ for making request and sending 1 line.

If something went wrong we fuss and handle opening errors.

Ah yes, I handled standard one or another situation myself, and once I got to standard library, I almost never used OrderSend(structure_request, structure_response) with few exceptions.

[Дмитрий Александрович]

Renat:
That's how his emotions played out. No arguments.

Apparently you are right, but that's OK, it happens to everybody :)

[Yedelkin]

Renat: That is, there are no technical arguments.

Of course. When one is too lazy to compare particular features, the same "no technical arguments" argument is born. Like, "I don't see any arguments; I'm too lazy to check; it's all bullshit".

OK, consider that with this your approach is "no arguments, just words".

[Дмитрий Александрович]

Yedelkin:

Of course. When one is too lazy to compare particular features, the same "no technical argument" type argument is born. Like, "I don't see any arguments; I'm too lazy to check"; so it's all bullshit.

OK, consider that with this approach of yours - "no arguments, just words".

Something so far I see your point of view as "I don't use the standard library, I'm not comfortable, but why I don't know".
I think I'll refrain from further debate, without any messages from you on the substance of the discussion.

[Yedelkin]

mrProF:  And what is the difference?

I've highlighted the word "DIRECTLY". If you want to use someone else's development with extra effort, that's no reason to tell newcomers that"sending queries and filling out structures is a perversion with many pitfalls".