Need help from MT4 developers and programmers - page 8
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
And, if I remember correctly, there was no such thing before, i.e. it is, to put it mildly, a "feature" added specially for "convenience" of programmers, but which violates invariance of existing codes (written for previous initialization rules). Thus, the immutable principle of preserving compatibility of old code with new versions of software wherever possible is not observed.
Nobody is against new features and optimizations. But why not do them in such a way that old code is not broken? In particular, for such new initialization we could allocate additional preprocessor command similar to #property strict. For example, it could be #property lazyinit, and if it is specified by developer (i.e. explicitly, which means that he is aware of new initialization in mql), then we rejoice at optimized optimization. And if it's not specified, then we are glad that previous code works consistently, without any digging and searching for places where global variables could remain, which now not only have to be declared, but also separately initialized in OnInit. For each such variable, there will be 2 lines of code instead of one.
I support the topicstarter 100%. MQ have been throwing more and more pitfalls in the direction of quadruplets lately.
If you give any new functionality - you have to ensure that all components work at all software levels.
It doesn't matter if infinite loop was used, timer, etc. Talking about bad programming style is inappropriate when there is a defect in MQ.
Does that mean that the MQ developer who created this window with parameters couldn't even imagine that loops could be used in MQL-programs?
Are you saying that the MQ developers do not know about their existence in principle? Or they just do not test the software after the correction?
That's just the impression I get.
I want to remind everyone that we are working with Forex market, which does not tolerate any bugs or delays.
Therefore, absolutely any bug (disruption of informational interaction), and in this case, obviously disrupted relationship between user and trading robot, is CRITICAL IMPORTANT.
One gets the feeling that a ready and fine-tuned four was injected with a raw five (boiled milk diluted with raw milk) and now everyone is farting.