When does it make sense to keep part of the robot code in an indicator? - page 35

New comment
 
Andrei01:

Well, do you consider your thinking to be adequate and non-fanatical, for that matter? It's not enough that you didn't manage to prove your hypothesis-belief that the same code in an indicator will always be faster than in an EA, but instead you started an absolutely unclear and meaningless competition (by the way, it was good, because it led to an interesting solution of communication breakdown in the EA). By the way, I haven't noticed anywhere on our site that adviser's code should preferably be written in an indicator for performance acceleration, so this statement sounds strange, at least, and I think you will agree with it.

My assumption was based on the simple logic that calling an external function with passing a copy of the buffer and parameters takes more time than without it; why would you deny this fact?

Your actions are certainly inadequate. Don't attribute to me what I haven't asserted. Re-read the thread again carefully and thoughtfully. Show me where I said that (quote verbatim)? Read it again, read it again, if you are so slow on the uptake.

 
Integer:

Your actions are clearly inadequate. Don't attribute to me something I didn't say. Re-read the thread again carefully and thoughtfully. Show me where I said that? Reread it, reread it again, if you're so slow on the uptake.

Well, if you didn't assert it then why did you need this contest comparing performance of one and the same code? What was its logic and what did you want to prove by it on this topic of discussion?
 
Andrei01:
Well, if you didn't assert it, why did you need this competition to compare the performance of the same code? What was the logic behind it and what did you want to prove about this topic of discussion?


Reread the thread, maybe you'll get it some day. I'm not sure, but maybe.

You were hopeful that day, you seemed to be getting it right, but it's still there.

 
Andrei01:

Well, do you consider your thinking to be adequate and non-fanatical, for that matter? It's not enough that you didn't manage to prove your hypothesis-belief that the same code in an indicator will always be faster than in an EA, but instead you started an absolutely unclear and meaningless competition (by the way, it was good, because it led to an interesting solution of communication breakdown in the EA). By the way, I haven't noticed anywhere on our site that adviser's code should preferably be written in an indicator for performance acceleration, so this statement sounds strange, at least, and I think you will agree with it.

My assumption was based on simple logic that calling an external function with passing a copy of the buffer and parameters takes more time than without it, why would you deny that I'm not sure.


We may consider the subject closed. The opponents acted around IndicatorCounted() and some other things... In the end - "clinging" to history paging tracking, etc. - Not at all in the basic theme. Initially, the question was about something else - the speed of execution - let it be, yes, with an "adequate" "comrade", and it's all reflected in previous posts, that there's no need to visualize anything (let alone execution speed), additionally using custom indicators in an Expert Advisor, for example, according to A. Elder's impulse system.Elder's system - by the way, I put the "impuls" indicator in the code base here in summer 2009. If the МА and MACD are up, then do not sell, otherwise do not beat, but directly beat these parameters in the EA as the trading criteria. In any case everyone will stick to his opinion, that's all. IMHO, of course.
 
Integer:

Your actions are definitely inadequate, the stupidity is indescribable, do not pass off your fantasies as reality. Do not attribute to me what I have not said. Re-read the thread again carefully and thoughtfully. Show me where I said that (quote verbatim)? Reread it, reread it again, if you're so slow on the uptake.

You're welcome. It seems pretty clear that it's hard to get away with such a statement.


 
Andrei01:

You're welcome. It seems very clear that it is hard to get away with such a statement.

Read carefully and thoughtfully what I suggested and what you attribute to me.

 
Integer:

Your actions are clearly inadequate. Don't attribute to me something I didn't say. Re-read the thread again carefully and thoughtfully. Show me where I said that (quote verbatim)? Read it again, read it again, if you are so slow on the uptake.


In the end, can you say specifically your opinion on the topmostar's basic question in the branch's thread title? "When does it make sense to keep part of the robot code in an indicator?"
 
Roman.:
"When does it make sense to keep part of the robot code in an indicator?"
In all but trivial cases. The EMA is no longer trivial.
 
Roman.:

In the end, can you give your opinion on the main question of the topic of the branch? "When does it make sense to keep part of the robot code in an indicator?"


I can. When you know how to write indicators, and take advantage of real indicator buffers and the IndicatorCounted() function.

 
TheXpert:
In all but the trivial. The EMA is no longer trivial.
Trivial is when? When you have to add two numbers and no more?
1...2829303132333435363738
New comment