Will OOP be in demand in MQL5? - page 4
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
You can do it without the latest fancy stuff from melkosoft. However, you can't do without all this fancy stuff like ' interface libraries ', at least while we talk about vindas. Actually it's a pity that MT developers seem to have sworn an undying fealty to the melkomsoft until the grave and not pay any attention to the rest. My gut tells me that it will be a real pain in the ass to make even entirely sinless MT5 work under Linux via Wine.
Invini, even old Java has analog of namespace for class packages, though a little bit through the guts. If you want, you can implement everything, whether MT5 for *nix via virtualization or MQL7 for Mono :)
In general, nen is right, the priority is to make the platform work faster than the competitors. But who understands what it means - that's another question.
Invini, even old Java has analog of namespace for class packages, though a little bit through the guts. If you want, everything can be implemented, whether it be MT5 for *nix through virtualization or MQL7 for Mono :)
In general, nen is right, the priority is the robust platform working faster than the competitors. Who understands what it means, that's another question.
Yes, we can also think of python and hassle. What I meant was that the semantics of the language are the meatballs, but the implementation on a particular operating system is the flies. The same Java, Python, Haskel, etc., work fine under Linux and poorly under Windows. Separating flies from cutlets, one can say that the object support under winnda is made ugly which isn't really surprising as winnda initially had quite a different paradigm than, for instance, unix (just recall its history, especially BG's comments from, if I'm not mistaken, 92-93 years upon the place and role of winnda on PC users). Windows grew out of DOS and only managed to move away from it to any extent by 2000. Under Unix, objects had been around almost from its inception, so the object model evolved in parallel with the system rather than being imposed by crooked hands like in Windows. Although, while Raymond Chen's team was working on winnda and its applications, it was ok, but in 2001, Chen left and it was an outrageous mess and its apotheosis was paranoid-copyright Vista (DRM). Eventually we will run MT5 on linux, but it will be a lobster, if not a cancer, with a lot of pain, and will take a lot of time and effort that could be used more profitably. And nen, of course, is right, and you're the boss.
Making a distinction between flies and cutlets, one can say that the object support under winnda is abysmally made, which isn't really surprising as winnda initially had a completely different paradigm than, for instance, unix (just recall its history, especially BG's comments from, if I'm not mistaken, 92-93 years about the place and role of winnda on PC users). Windows grew out of DOS and only managed to move away from it to any extent by 2000. Under Unix, objects had been around almost from its inception, so the object model developed in parallel with the system rather than being imposed by crooked hands like in Windows. Although, while Raymond Chen's team worked on winnda and its applications, it was more or less, but in 2001, Chen left and it was an outrageous mess and its apotheosis was paranoid-copyright Vista (DRM).
Well, if you mean programming language objects, both *nix and Windows are based on C/C++ with all that it implies. If you're talking about Linux architecture with its add-ons (kernel, graphics, gnomics, etc.), then yes, Windows is in a catching up role. But about the Windows objects curvature as such, I don't really agree - take the .net framework, IMHO it is properly designed (though the implementation is squeezed into the existing realities, of course), for a normal person/programmer, with C++/Delphi/Java experience, and not through the ass.
About DRM it's politics, if one imagined oneself in MS shoes and assessed their scope of the operating system market, one would probably act the same way. There is simply (so far) no such pressure on Linux.
Here we have the first programs in MQL5.
Procedural.
Where, who, for the sake of interest or just to try, or to show their advanced and enlightened nature, used OOP?
I would really like to see an example of such a program. I'd really like to see an example of such a programme.
Here come the first programmes in MQL5.
Procedural.
Where has anyone used OOP for the sake of interest or just to try it or to show your advanced and enlightened nature?
I would really like to see an example of such a program. Please.
Tetris?
Yes, of course.
But by OOP demand in MQL5 I (maybe due to my naivety?) meant not writing toys. And those programs that are already posted in Code Base do not use OOP. Although only complete sensory invalids are not aware of its usefulness in general, and for the purpose of MT in particular - both the developers insisted on this fact and the public (judging by the forum) yearn for it.
>> So where is it?
Svinozavr писал(а) >>
So where?
I plan to write a position and order manager. But I don't see any point in starting before the release of the trading functions document.
I also plan to write a shell for objects, but that's a little later.
I plan to write a position and order manager. But I don't see any point in starting before the release of the trading functions document.
I also plan to write a shell around objects, but it will be done later.
It would be interesting to see. If it's not a secret, what prevents you from writing an indicator, where trading functions are not used? Or is it just not a task? Although no, sorry, you have to rewrite them anyway. Are you planning to do without OOP?
If it's no secret, what's holding you back from writing an indicator that doesn't use trading functions?
Absolutely nothing :) you can even say quite the contrary:). Not OOP yet.
Not only that, I'm planning to write an article on indicators soon.
Absolutely nothing :) You can even say quite the contrary:). So far without OOP.
Besides, I'm planning to write an article on indicators soon.
Well, yes. Yours is the other way round and I have already studied it with benefit and interest. But why "no OOP yet"? You do not want to scare the dummies?))) Well, why not for yourself?
The article is needed. I'll be waiting. Yes, everyone is waiting. Only there, as I understand it, it's "bye" too.))