Discussion on MQL4 documentation - page 9

New comment
 
What's interesting I saw the following line in the documentation
Since indexes start with zero, the dimension size is 1 more than the largest index.
 I thought... It's interesting even for "mere mortals" (those who are not familiar with programming) who do not know that arrays are numbered from 0. :)
 

Yes, the phrase "Since indexes are zero-based, the size of dimension is 1 greater than the largest index" made me think hard about its hidden meaning, although I usually read MQL4 documentation in English without any dictionary...

This is an interesting situation. The developers, as I understand it, are Russian, and the built-in documentation is in English. Maybe the problem is in the translator? OK, look here: https://docs.mql4.com/ru/array/ArrayRange, it's all in Russian. The Russian equivalent of the phrase is as follows:

Because indexes start from zero, the dimension size is 1 more than the largest index.

"Than the largest index" - of what? And how, after all, are dimension sizes indexed - with 0 or with 1? Here too, the phrase is equally unclear, alas. Maybe the problem is not with the translator after all? The translator translated the original phrase into English accurately, without adding or omitting anything.

Now, I would put myself in the translator's shoes. If I encountered such a phrase in the description of a programming language, I would first try to understand it properly, and then translate it. I would not fall behind the author of the Russian description until I would understand the meaning of this phrase for myself 100%. Maybe the problem is in him, the translator of the documentation? It's not that he translates inaccurately, but that the translator must have at least a basic understanding of programming, so that he can correct any ambiguities in the Russian original description?

P.S. Again the same forum glitch I pointed out in'Help me fix EA ?!'...

Xeon, thanks, I understood everything, I just never switched to Russian because I didn't need to.

 
A link to the topic :-) + on "what some executives think of programmers" :-)

http://www.ashmanov.com/pap/obspro.phtml

The program is well documented in C.

Comment: a programmer's joke "for their own", reflecting the sad fact that no one has written comments and documentation for programs and will not do so unless forced by a firm hand.
 
 
Renat:
My understanding is that:
  • availability of built-in documentation on MQL4 (in two languages) in MetaEditor
  • development of the MQL4 programming community website in three languages (Russian, English and Chinese)
  • Paying for the articles of independent traders in MQL4
  • Organizing the Automated Trading Championship
  • maintenance of the Codebase online library with direct access from MetaEditor
  • Technical support and permanent consulting of traders by the developers in our forums
just is:

This is the approach of the Soviet programmer like: "We have written a super-genius and self-explanatory system, and you, fool, can't figure it out.

Don't make such an obvious substitution of concept. The Soviet programmer's approach was not a list of your company's achievements, but the phrase you inappropriately expressed: "This is fun. I don't want to study it, but I'm ready to blame you for the lack of documentation".

I don't deny that you're doing a lot to improve your documentation, but don't get caught up in the idea of "you can't please everyone anyway, especially since everyone is too lazy to study". Don't take the participants of this thread as capricious users who don't know what they want themselves.

I personally started to get acquainted with MQL since last weekend and now I can say that I've got it all figured out, and I can write any expert, just look through the help and find the required functions. That's a good achievement of your documentation and I'm grateful to you for that. But in this thread I just gave some suggestions of methodological nature, which I think may be interesting for you, because it may make life easier for many others who want to learn MQL. However, as Yurixx rightly pointed out: "And in this thread a few (only a few !) specific wishes on the subject have been expressed. Implementation of those wishes would result in a completely new quality of MQL learning opportunities for those same beginners. Nevertheless, you didn't say anything about it."

I reiterate, the problem with your documentation is not that there is outdated or missing data somewhere, but that it does not introduce the beginner step by step. That is, it is a methodological problem. When you start learning a new area of knowledge, the first thing you need to do is to find out why you need it, what benefits it will bring, what sections there are in that area of knowledge, what role those sections play and why the division is the way it is. And only then, when you know your goals and objectives, when you have everything organized and structured in your head, you begin the routine - the direct study of information, the study of formulas and tables. You have the information, but no introduction.

You also do not have examples in the spirit of "let's write a simple Expert Advisor with you: click there, do this, write that, we did it all because... congratulations you have an Expert Advisor, you can run it like this".

These are simply wishes that any teacher would support. It doesn't take money or time to create both the first (input) and the second (a few initial examples). Writing these pieces of documentation is a week's work for one person on your team. If you have all of the above, I personally would spend 3 hours, not days, to study MQL.

Also, an idea to add comments to the documentation posted on the Internet has been suggested here. That's a sensible idea! We could even make documentation as a knowledge base in the manner of Web 2.0 social networks. For each article in the documentation, let users add constructive comments in micro-article style (1-2 paragraphs), rating each other, discussing the articles and asking each other questions. Do a user rating, and let users write their own "needed by society" documentation for the respect and recognition of their peers.

I understand that you have a burden of responsibility, many other problems and all the advice listed here is not so easy to implement. You may be afraid of increasing the complexity of your product, which comes with trying to please everyone, and that is commendable. However, we as users also have the right to suggest some conceptual things that can make your product clearer and more accessible. Consult any expert in the field of education or usability, I'm sure they will support the thoughts expressed here, especially on the way the information is presented.
 
xeon:
A link to the topic :-) + on "what some executives think of programmers" :-)

http://www.ashmanov.com/pap/obspro.phtml
:)))
 
Yurixx, please point out the actual error. What you cited is not even remotely an error.

The description you gave in the helpline is perfectly normal and clear.
 
There is no need to make such an obvious substitution of concept. I did not call the Soviet programmer's approach a list of your company's achievements, but the phrase you inappropriately expressed, "It's fun to do. I don't want to study it, but I'm ready to blame you for the lack of documentation" <br / translate="no">.
There is no substitution. I am speaking out proactively and pointing out the actual state of documentation to stop excessive aggression amidst a lack of awareness. It was you who explicitly made the accusatory statement "This is the Soviet programmer's approach in the spirit of ...".

My experience and knowledge is enough to consciously explain to people that programming is a complicated thing, and no theoretical rush (to learn a language in 3 hours!) will not make you a programmer. But some people do not want to understand this, turn off their heads, hang the slogan "The customer is always right" on the flag and declare literally the following:

Understand, if people are having a hard time figuring it out without a textbook, that's your problem, and yours alone

It's about the same as saying to the law of gravity "Understand, it's bad for people to move around, that's your problem! Why don't you get it?" By the way, how would you feel about becoming a physicist from one book and better in 3 hours, 7 days tops?

I mean, I'm all for common sense, a conscious approach to programming (programming is hard), factual material (no need for empty or obfuscated accusations) and no whining about not wanting to understand (yes, it is hard).

Nothing personal - this is without courteous reverence and to the point.
 
I have a constructive suggestion - supplement each indication of insufficient documentation with your own detailed version. And a freely written article would be a significant contribution to the seriousness of the author. By the way, to see who and how much has been written, just click on the author's name.

Who would be willing to contribute to the expansion of documentation?
 
alex_ant:
....
You also have no examples in the vein of "let's write a simple EA with you: click there, do this, write that, we did it all because... congratulations you have an EA, run it like this".
...
One of the first articles on the website:Example of creating an Expert Advisor
The article, of course, is a little outdated, but it gives an insight into the structure of a simple Expert Advisor.
12345678910111213141516...20
New comment