who ! who ! but me to school............ - page 2
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
2bstone
"he who does nothing has nothing"
or
"he who does not risk does not drink champagne"
or
"he who does nothing makes no mistakes"
but... it's an experience... and it's life experience.
2. about OOP, I think you will agree that it is more difficult to understand some programming principles than non-OOP ones
Some people are afraid of making the language too complicated. But MQL is a very simple language, even if it has its own features.
3. Here I will argue with you again. Take any job with a good compilation of labor there you'll see the line "nnn years of experience", to provide even greater confidence in the knowledge (a few jobs) indicates a mandatory international certification (well, I have an OCP for Oracle, which I got not so long ago) but I'll be honest it's just a piece of paper... Why do they not recruit young students who graduated from GUU with an MBA straight to CEO? Again ... experience is required ... To understand all the intricacies and pitfalls that do not give knowledge, but experience.
Even if you are a programming mega genius, you will not be hired as a team leader or project manager without experience. This is exactly what IMHO experience is for. And the list of projects you have participated in is much more important than certificates. And the interview puts everything in its place.
However, we have strayed too far from the subject.
Hello, I want to learn how to program, I'm sick of sitting near a monitor and i will try to write my own trading system
>> who's got advice on where to start?
You can read how to learn how to program
1- Some people are not given to write programmes
[...]There are actually not many firsts.
Come on, Trubo Pascual was non-objective before version 5.
And secondly: I think the former are quite a few. In particular, they are almost all humanitarians. That's where the proverb fits very well: "No matter how much you teach a chicken, you'll only know more." I am not attacking the humanities. This is just a fact. As, for example, that I would never become a nerd (I hated it at school).
Come to think of it, Trubo Pasqualee was unobjectified until version 5.
And secondly: I think the former are quite a few. In particular, they are almost all humanitarians.
I see, I only worked on version 6 and 7.
Hehheh, I've heard the opinion that humanitarians are better at writing programs because they can express their thoughts more accurately.
well, not everyone is so stubborn, that's why they're not programmers.
Humanitarians can express their feelings more accurately, but not the clear requirements for the output product of the programme. They are fine with normal, human logic, but they are usually not so good with mathematical logic. I doubt that many of them are able to understand the need for rigorous proof in mathematics.
P.S. And it is quite another matter that technicians often become major cultural figures.
Hello I want to learn how to program, I'm sick of sitting near the engine, I will try to write my trading system
Any advice on where to start?
I started with
1) https://www.mql5.com/ru/articles/1475
2) https://www.mql5.com/ru/articles/1483
3) https://www.mql5.com/ru/articles/1496
4) https://www.mql5.com/ru/articles/1500
5) https://www.mql5.com/ru/articles/1503
I'm studying a textbook right now.
6) https://book.mql4.com/ru/to Mathemat
Hee......Strictly mathematical proof....this is the mehm-mat,
but let's take the qualification step below - the physics department:
there it is not or almost not there anymore, mathematics so to say is being licked, so the nightmare is Urmatfiz.
.... Proof thinking, which comes from mathematical thinking, i.e. from ancient Greeks, is not inherent even to physicists,
let alone technicians....
The main peculiarity of technicians is the ability to independently evaluate the achieved result.
I.e. To think up how to check AND check. Let it be "as in your village" but it must work.
IMHO_ the one who can check the program is a PR-grammer.
Well, in general, "Good for Pushkin, good for the son of a bitch!" - (A.S. himself at the end of "Boris Godunov")
and conversely, those technocrats who, contrary to their serious education, think like the ancient Greeks (i.e. provably)
have been able to achieve something (if they didn't get eaten up in this battle))))
You've got a big mouth, Korey, "mehmat"... By the way, absolutely rigorous proofs will not be available even at M.Sc., because for rigour one has to start from the very basics - the axioms of mathematics. And there is already a lot of mathematics, and interesting mathematics itself is incomplete in nature (Gödel). But I like your last sentence: In the real world it is sufficient to formalize the essential properties of the phenomenon, in order to build its adequate model.