Question for MATHEMATICS - 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
Haven't read the thread. Flubbing.
There's a trade associated with programming in MQL. Let's take a fairly simple task for an EA - crossing two wagons (well maybe that's too cool, better of course a couple or three indicators and with a different "approach" to the market). I'm sure that even with such a simple EA the codes of different progers will be different. But I, as a customer, will hardly be interested even in a compact code. I will pay attention to:
1. the accuracy of processing of my (most often - idiotic) task, for example - will signals of actual crossing only, or touching and then running up, i.e. whether the coder has managed to provide at least some kind of safety for my idiosyncrasy? Otherwise I will not blame myself, but the coder for my idiocy.
2. The number of trade orders and the number of server's failures - this is more important, whether the coder was able to correctly handle trade orders and make the dealer execute them. I do not care about requotes, trading prohibitions during news hours, delays during engine time and other stuff - otherwise you have not worked with my money.
And then what I have not even thought about - lot optimization, dynamic stoploss, trawl and other weird things...
How about this? This will determine the coder suitability for MQL? Only it will not cost a small nickel (from Winnie the Teddy). And the number of my orders would fall dramatically, because no matter how well the code is executed, my idiocy cannot be cancelled by the coder.
I absolutely agree. This refers to "knowledge of the subject of coding", it seems to me. The high coder should produce a reliable product, knowing the nuances of real trading and perhaps identifying the peculiarities of trading in the particular DC specified by the customer. Then the idiocy of the trader will not play a fatal role. And the price of the product should be appropriate, in spite of the apparent, visual simplicity.
And valuations of labour, by the way.
This formula has been known for more than a thousand years - the supply/demand ratio. No matter how genius you are, if the demand is low, you'll be coding for peanuts. And if the demand is high, then even yesterday's schoolboy, having read the preface to the book on MQL, will demand/receive very much. And no formulas will change it.
Why does Integer code for pennies? And look at local customers: "I'm ready to pay $10, this job is not worth more".
On the other hand, MQL programmers have some specificity, as it seems to me. There, 95% of the work is a repetition of what was previously done for someone else. So, there may be almost no coding - you just put ready-made blocks together.
This formula has been known for more than a thousand years - the supply-demand ratio. No matter how genius you are, if the demand is low, you'll be coding for peanuts. And if the demand is high, then even yesterday's schoolboy reading the introduction to the book on MQL will not demand/receive childishly. And no formulas will change it.
Why does Integer code for pennies? And look at local customers: "I'm ready to pay $10, this job is not worth more".
On the other hand, MQL programmers have some specificity, as it seems to me. There, 95% of the work is a repetition of what was previously done for someone else. I.e. there may be almost no coding - you just put ready-made blocks together.
So that's the thing, there's no market where supply and demand are born. There are stumps... And there are more and more traders...
95% of the work already done is intellectual property... But of course, it can be stolen by decoding the product.
Djurica was decoded (lying quietly in Code Base), but we don't see any craftsmen who understand its algorithm... A unique filter, in fact.
Djuric has been decoded (lying quietly in Code Base), but we don't see any craftsmen who understand its algorithm...
Can it be understood in such a way that it will behave unpredictably integrated into an EA at some point in time? Well, in a primitive way.
In theory, yes. Some consider it "murky". Well, it is certainly not out of the sandbox, and large-scale experiments to test it decently for unpredictability can in principle be done.
Why not? The splitter is quite decent, if the "source" file compiles after that. And the splitter can not do more, because information about names is not stored in ex4 - where to get it?
Why not? The splitter is quite decent, if the "source" file compiles after that. And the splitter won't be able to do more, because the name info isn't stored in ex4 - where does it get it?
Correction... I wasn't referring to the decoder program, but the decoded product, the source.