Will OOP be in demand in MQL5? - 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
Ho-ho... Your project will be just as good an example.
It's not easy to isolate a base class and build other classes.
The conversation will or will not be demanded abstract.
The tone of the conversation is: OOP is superfluous, it would be better to evolve what we already have.
So in fact the discussion comes down to convincing that what has been done is superfluous. And it isn't.
Those who want to use OOP will do so.
There are opportunities to do it.
====================
There are a lot of new possibilities in MQL5. And there are a lot of new possibilities in MT5. Useful features.
Now the main task is to bring all these new features to perfection. There will be no going back to the old stuff anyway.
Perhaps do a conversion of this to a temporary handle. We're leaning towards the idea of doing this.
That's what I'm getting at, because I've already encountered a situation that can't be solved any other way.
Whoever wants to use OOP will use it.
Who wants to use OOP? Show me this person! Or rather, his code. Perhaps many of them would like to. What's the point.
An abstract conversation, you say? I'd even say it's abstract. Because OOP is not demanded by the fact that the codes have already been published.
Like they say that those who are used to it will write OOP. Are there none of those who are accustomed to OOP among the authors who posted codes on 5?
Who wants to apply OOP? Show me that person! Or rather, his code.
Few people will show the code. What for? To brag?
Few people will show the code. Why? To brag?
???????? Yeah, really - why? I've been dumb lately. Serious people are here to chat, and here I am talking about some codes.
Soon there'll be articles on how to calculate on a calculator, why do we need codes? There's some serious fucking people here.
???????? Да, действительно - зачем? Туплю я последнее время что-то. Здесь серьезные люди потрепаться зашли, а тут я о каких-то кодах.
Скоро статьи появятся как удобнее считать на калькуляторе - зачем нам коды? Здесь, млять, СЕРЬЕЗНЫЕ люди.
Swinosaur, I don't understand your hysteria (sorry, but I couldn't find a more appropriate word). There is a lot of great code written in MQL4. At first it will be used in 5. Later purely OOP codes will be developed that use A's capabilities. You would also send an angry letter to Stroustrup and Richie: "Assholes! Why did you invent C++? It was so good when there was only C, and now for some reason you've added OOP too!!!" - I personally find it funny, don't you?
That's what I'm getting at because I've already encountered a situation which cannot be solved in any other way.
It is also possible to pass the pointer as an object by reference. The main thing is that the pointer must be checked for validity before this operation, otherwise it will crash.
Maybe this will work in your case?
Who wants to apply OOP? Show me that person! Or rather, his code. Maybe a lot of people would like to. What's the point?
Have fun.
An object-matrix, which components (elements and information about sizes) are distributed on three variables - it's a nightmare, to put it mildly. (although it's even more of a nightmare to pack everything into one array, allocating the first elements for size information of the matrix)
I found only two authors. They are satop and TheExpert, and there are only 5-6 sources. Not a lot of statistics.
Peter, take your time, everything will appear. Since the start of beta-testing there are no projects for which OOP is clearly preferable.
I can already name a project, which would be better implemented exactly with the help of OOP. It's a Fibs trading system based on Miner's book "Dynamic Trading" (of course, considerably simplified; nevertheless several previous attempts to make it on Quaternary have not come to fruition).
Swinosaur, I don't understand your hysteria (sorry, but I couldn't find a more appropriate word). There is a lot of great code written in MQL4. At first it will be used in 5. Later purely OOP codes will be developed that use A's capabilities. You would also send an angry letter to Stroustrup and Richie: "Assholes! Why did you invent C++? It was so good when there was only C, and now for some reason you've added OOP too!!!" - I personally find it funny, don't you?
No hysterics. And no anger about it. Just a question (see thread). You have an "interesting" way of debate: invent an opponent's position, and then with brilliance, humor and rhetoric that would make ancient orators jealous, its - position - and his - the speaker - to trash.
A cheap move, my dear. Nothing of the sort is in my posts and it does NOT follow from them. Finish with the hallucinogens - sorry, I can think of no other explanation. I stated my position in the first post of the sub. Now I'm beginning to have an opinion on the FACT.
The fact that the problems with automated trading, in particular data availability detection, remained (judging by feedback and readings of the Help) and even became more complicated to solve at the code level, naturally raises a question in me: did the developers direct their creative energy there? That's all. And mind you! I didn't bring up this non-ODP related topic - just responded to the post. And I even underlined - "I'm not talking about OOP now".