Interesting topic for many: what's new in MetaTrader 4 and MQL4 - big changes on the way - page 45
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 most important reason, of course, is laziness.
brown-aleks:
...Now imagine how simple it would be, for example: On a clean space in the middle of the working area (not on a chart of quotations of a trading instrument, but in the source code editor) by Drag&Drop I have thrown different (necessary) icons from any sidebar. After that, connect the necessary points of the icons-figures with lines of logical links. As a result, the source code will look like a motherboard with chips, semiconductors and other elements connected by tracks. Then we also press the compile button in this editor, and the EA is ready!
...Cool, but unrealistic.
MQ won't do it, a single programmer can't do it.
And the team will not gather because it would be too expensive to make such a product for a fee, and free - for whom and what for? (And the intricacies of open source projects, they have been discussed here on this forum, "the crab and the pike").
Cool, but unrealistic.
not cool at all. utopia.
How many of these projects have died (think of the panel competition and the rest of the brainchildren of lone geniuses).
The history of WYSIWYG needs to end and spend time and effort on what is needed by those who pay.
The history of WYSIWYG needs to end and spend time and effort on what those who pay need.
...WYSIWYG is cool, ...
Developers only need to make a field for visual modules and create rules for creating modules, and let the consumers do the filling with functions.
Cool, but unrealistic.
MQ won't do it, a single programmer won't be able to do it.
And the team will not get together, because making such a product for a fee would be too expensive, free - for whom and what for? (And the intricacies of open source projects, they have been discussed here on this forum, "the crab and the pike").
It's actually much simpler than that. It's much harder to realise the pros and decide to start.
Was MQL developed by one programmer? I find it hard to believe. I've already mentioned a third-party project(I won't mention it anymore, it may annoy the moderator), which was created by four enthusiastic programmers. The project is completely free and publicly available. It is not very popular because the editor is intended primarily for writing programs for Win32. There are not enough opportunities to achieve this goal and no one pays for the development except for donations.
But the graphical representation of the source code in MQL would be just right. This will greatly facilitate the work of EA programming and the number of those who want to design their own EAs will also increase significantly.
Well, the MQL programmers probably do not work for free. I think they have much more experience and possibilities.
Developers only need to make a field for visual modules and create rules for creating modules, and let the consumers do the filling with functions.
I warn you with too many letters...
There are a number of "forces" for and against such decisions. The main one is inertia, it is the strongest, inertia of mind is the main brake on progress in any field, most "professionals" are always poor souls, exhausted by the narcan who have found a shaky balance in the competition and panicked about losing it, they are so fixed and reflexively defend any established order in their profession that they must be treated as mentally ill, politely and with compassion. Such people have walked a long way to their "heights" and for them there is no doubt that the next batch of "pros" must first of all pass their way emotionally, that is knowledge and skills must be obtained with great difficulty and moral suffering, only then they will be recognized as "true". It is like in the army hazing, logically it makes no sense but without it it is difficult to form some herd motivation like "brotherhood" and belonging to a "dedicated". This is not only in the army, even in tough unities there are brotherhoods where dedication through humiliation and physical misfortune is practiced
It is the same with science, a "scientist" is psychologically perceived as a "patient", someone who has experienced more pressure than others, someone who has suffered more and "got there". And all who have gone down this path are likely to demand the same from neophytes. A modern science evolved from alchemy, the alchemists due to persecutions were forced to cipher their researches behind vague and ambiguous formulas, incomprehensible to the plebs and uninitiated aristocracy, since then the science has not got rid of a stereotype of artificial complication, for the sake of an increase in their authority, for competitive reasons. Logically, the more convoluted the structure of an algorithm, the "cooler" the person who realizes it and uses it, it is pure social slag, having nothing to do with real science.
I've worked with programmers in game industry for many years, and I perfectly understand the structure of effective software production. Roughly speaking there are "architects" and there are simple "coders", while the former usually convert the latter, but it usually happens quickly and not because of the amount of code they write in lines, but because of their inventiveness, they think on a higher level, simultaneously see the whole and the particular, so they easily notice the best ways. As a rule such people are not very efficient by the criterion of code volume per unit of time and sometimes even suffer from slight dyslexia. But they are the true inventors and not those who later implement their ideas. Correspondingly their income is scaled from times to orders of magnitude relative to the implementers.
The confrontation of old-school professionals is like a religious fanaticism, it is emotional, appeals to herd urges, you often hear taunts, general statements, fact substitutions, sophistry, demagogy, etc. Fear of losing one's livelihood, all this can be understood from a human point of view, but not from a scientific point of view. It is a brake on science.
The routine coders no matter consciously or not, they understand or feel the lack of ingenuity and stake on their super memory and assiduity, the main value for them is the volume of memorized functions, classes, terms, etc., for a given subject area, for such people the main difference between a professional and an amateur is knowledge of terminology and other clever words. Unfortunately in marginal strata it is generally accepted and pronouncing a combination of terms and an authority quote can easily mislead the majority.
Well let's leave psychology for now and turn to consperology)))))))))
It is obvious that most VCs are kitchens in Forex, there is a conflict of interest, which is expressed from quite crude ways of deception to subtle propaganda and black PR regarding profitable technologies and even ideas. All this is clear to a reasonable person, and everyone, if he were on the other side, would act in the same way. If I were a brokerage company owner I wouldn't welcome RAD's technology in a trading terminal either, it would be profitable for me if the client would constantly stumble upon "complications" and perceive them as "the way to success", be proud of it and defend this paradigm. I have tested a dozen systems in my life and made sure they all failed, and then I would sell them to suckers. And he would ridicule any new technology that speeds up / simplifies TS development.
In terms of the specifics of the trading business, even at the level of regulated exchanges, again it's not very sensible. Even those brokers who live for the commission will not be motivated to develop ultra-comfortable RAD-interfaces for their trading platforms, because such developments are better to use by themselves or sell to large hedge-funds.
It turns out that only inhouse can be like that. And it will become public when a more efficient inhouse is already available.
theses:
1)New technology that accelerates/simplifies labour is inevitably resisted by those who are used to the "good old-fashioned" technology because they fear being left on the sidelines.
2) This opposition has to do with socio-emotional factors rather than rational arguments. on the psychological side.
3) In the context of algotrading, no one benefits from publishing innovations and effective methods of finding them.
4) Sooner or later, the more efficient technology penetrates, wins and becomes sort of retrospectively accepted by everyone, banality, obviousness, etc...
So what do you want?
What I want I order as separate inhouse applications. And I'm glad it's not fashionable amongst the suffering "pros". MT as a trading platform suits me fine, as a research platform it's the early 90's.
Personally, I too think that all these visual constructors - don't hold much promise.
The problem is that they only have advantages when building fairly simple systems. If the software modules are scaled up, cross-referenced and architected - building such modules from WYSIWIG components becomes a very difficult task, often more difficult than writing these modules in regular code.
There correctly noted - "how many of them have sunk into oblivion" - indeed, if WYSIWIG-principle would have a distinct advantage over conventional code - surely already would have stood out stable products that have their constant fans. Alas, as far as I know there are no such products.
Therefore, directing efforts to create a visual environment does not seem unreasonable to me personally.