PostMessageA(Parent(), WM_COMMAND, 33042, 0); - 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
Ну тогда могу предложить другие варианты... но это зависит как далеко в пространстве Вы хотите свой советник запустить :))
Заметьте, что я про Ваше дуркование еще ничего не сказал... Думаете не мог бы? :))
Ибо остаюсь в рамках разумной дискуссии и анализа приведенных аргументов...
Does your analogy mean "staying within the bounds of reasonable discussion and analysis of the arguments presented..."? ))) Well, well, then I'm the one who's not within the framework. Especially since I'm not debating, I'm just telling. There is nothing to discuss here.
Of course you are right and everyone else - the grandees of trading technology - are wrong. I'm not talking about poor MKs.)))
God be with you. Sit whomever you like, by whomever you like and however you like. )))===
"Dorking" or "playing dumb" means pretending not to understand. And to deny any of your opponent's points. Even if they tell you that water is wet or 2+2=4. Also, this tactic involves making deliberately absurd arguments in order to piss off the interlocutor, to force him to explain obvious things, etc. etc.
So there is nothing offensive about the term. It's a tactic that has been practiced on the Internet, particularly by the "kascheites".
Only I do not play these games.) Wanted to, seeing your delusion, help, but ... well, what now. Go ahead...)))
"Дурковать" или "включать дурака" означает делать вид, что не понимаешь. И отрицать любые посылы оппонента. Даже если тебе скажут, что вода - мокрая или 2+2=4.
Well, by this logic it appears that it is you who are fooling around and denying any message... Notice all your arguments consist of phrases like "water is wet or 2+2=4".
All would be well only what has "wetness of water" to my arguments? :))
Everything was in this moonlit world :)
And this topic has come up many times. Who is MT4 for - for traders/analysts with their logic or for programmers with, of course, their logic... ;)
Ну дык по этой логике выходит что именно Вы дуркуете и отрицаете любые посылы... Заметьте всё Ваши аргументы состоят из фраз типа "вода - мокрая или 2+2=4".
Всё бы хорошо только какое отношение имеет "мокрость воды" к моим аргументам? :))
))) Once again - I'm not arguing with you, I'm just telling you why such a division is made in "non-toy" trading platforms. So I don't have an "argument". It's just the way it is. You think it's wrong - well, count for yourself. What do you want from me? That I prove to you that these platforms were not made by idiots? I'm not gonna do that. I didn't make them. Maybe they were idiots...))
That's it. Forget it.
))) Еще раз - я с вами не спорю, а просто рассказываю, почему сделано такое разделение в "не игрушечных" торговых платформах.
In general, I don't mind splitting it into a million small parts, but as long as it doesn't interfere with the development of the TS, otherwise what's the point?
Take MT4, for example. Please follow the logical chain.
Let's write the analytics in the indicator, but ... the code of the indicator is not tested in the tester (time synchronization is not supported) => conclusion: the analytics in an indicator cannot be tested simply ... but let's go further and zigzag... "Drunken Wushuist" style... transfer the analytics to the Expert Advisor, but... the EA can't display chart lines... but there's still a chance for the "drunken Wushuist"... we attach global level for indicator to draw, but ... still it doesn't work, because the exchange cannot be synchronized, as the indicator is not supported by Sleep() delay in order to update data in time ... well, only crippling can cause crippling... law of nature, sorry...
In general, I don't mind splitting it into a million small parts, but as long as it doesn't interfere with the development of the TS, otherwise what's the point?
Take MT4, for example. Please follow the logical chain.
Let's write the analytics in the indicator, but ... the code of the indicator is not tested in the tester (time synchronization is not supported) => conclusion: the analytics in an indicator cannot be tested simply ... but let's go further and zigzag... "drunken wushuist" style... we transfer the analytics to the tester, but... the tester can't display the graphical lines... but there's still a chance for "drunken Wushuist"... we stick the exchange on global level, but... it still doesn't work because the exchange can't be synchronized because the indicator is not supported by Sleep() delay... Anyway, only awkwardness can cause awkwardness... law of nature, sorry...
I have even more suggestions for the tester in MT4 ... suggestions than you do :)
If I write both trading and "visual analytics" (indicator) myself, I try to describe the mathematics in an inluder and inlude it wherever I want.
In one of your posts you mentioned saving the drowning men. If you hadn't brought up "politics" here too, you might have been given some advice.
Ehhh runet :(
Вообще я не против разделения хоть на милион маленьких частей, но при условии што это не сильно мешает разработке ТС, а иначе какой смысл?
Вот возьмём к примеру МТ4. Следите за логической цепочкой.
Аналитику допустим пишем в индикаторе, но... код индикатора не тестируется в тестере (не поддерживается временная синхронизация) => вывод: аналитику в индикаторе по простому оттестить нельзя... но пойдем дальше, уже зигзагом... стиль "пьяный ушуист"... переносим аналитику в тестер, но... в тестере нельзя отобразить графические линии... но всё ещё есть шанс у "пьяного ушуиста"... прилепляем обмен на глобальном уровне, но.. всё равно не работает так как обмен невозможно синхронизировать так как в индикаторе не поддеживается задержка Sleep()... воопщем, корявость может породить только корявость... закон природы, извините...
If you are talking about the implementation of the 'separation of powers' principle, then I totally agree with you - it could have been done better. But you (your own post) dislike the principle!)) I, for example, prefer to stuff all the analytics and logic (!))) into a composite indicator. It is more convenient for me HERE - in MT. The Expert Advisor will only execute the orders generated by this indicator.
In Metastock, I prefer to do as intended - analytics in indicators and trading decisions in Expert Advisors. For example, see Nikolay Kositsyn's series of articles about including indicators in Expert Advisors' code.
However... The direction of MT with this division is absolutely logical (and correct). So there is no point in attacking the approach - it is common for more or less "adult" platforms.
Ключевое слово тестер, а не открытие ордеров в индикаторе и возврат советником до 8 значений (а еще - работа советника и открытие ордеров на мертвом рынке). ;)
У меня к тестеру в MT4 еще больше ... предложений чем у Вас :)
Если я сам пишу и торговую и "визуально аналитическую часть" (индикатор), то я стараюсь математику описать в инклуднике и инклудить его куда угодно.
В одном из своих постов Вы упомянули про спасение утопающих. Если бы Вы не развели И здесь "политику", Вам бы, наверное, что-нибудь да посоветовали.
Ээээх рунет :(
Uh... ignore the politics, it's just... secondary... you could say with grief ....
My requirements for the tester are very minimal - it should be able to test analytical strategies... at least the most basic ones... otherwise what's there to test on it?
But here's a question about your methodology, I'd be grateful if you could explain it to me... Suppose you're using your maths in the Expert Advisor, how do you display lines on the chart synchronously with the tester? The tester does not support induki. Huh?
посмотрите, например, цикл статей Н.Косицына о внедрении индикаторов в код экспертов.