MT4 doesn't have long to live - page 11
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
I may have overdone it with the visibility of the characters. My apologies to everyone for the inaccurate information. By the way, here is an attempt to implement multi-currency testing, if anyone is interested.
It's better here. https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/124013
But it's still a perversion. Although better... ;)
Are you waiting for MT6 already?! Maybe in 8 years. Study MT5/MQL5 for now. )))
Ah... well if so - of course) although I plan to use the multicurrency to diversify the risks of a system with a positive MO on one pair. - Not for joint multicurrency analysis).
MT4 is enough for me for now - for single packs)
It's better here. https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/124013
But it's still twisted. It's better though... ;)
This is S&M! And anyway, multicurrency on mt4 is a perversion anyway).
This is an interesting discussion.
Let me remind people here - a trading platform exists for traders.
They are the ones who bring profit to the brokers. Not programmers.
I don't care if MQL5 is 20 times more powerful than 4.
I am a trader who learned to code my tasks in MQL4, and it is important for me to have multiple positions, including counter positions.
That's the way I work. Netting is unacceptable to me.
And as long as there are people like me, MT4 will not die.
Thank you for your attention.
hhohholl: Неттинг мне неприемлем.
And as long as there are people like me, MT4 will not die.
Two strategies are equivalent if their equities are equal at any point in time - even if the balances are very different.
The equity of a "tray" system differs from the equity of the same netting system only by plus or minus the spread (or several spreads if there are several lots for one instrument). And these differences disappear when all positions are closed.
Two strategies are equivalent if their equities are equal at any point in time - even if the balances are very different.
The equity of a "tray" system differs from the equity of the same netting system only by plus or minus the spread (or several spreads if there is more than one tray for the same instrument). And these differences disappear when all positions are closed.
...
But MT4 is like a fast graceful gazelle compared to MT5) And it has no less possibilities to implement ANY strategy.
I can check absolutely any idea in MT4 in half an hour.
About the possibilities of any strategy, you are clearly exaggerating. For example I tried many times to develop multicurrency strategies on MT4, but the Strategy Tester does not support them and I have no time to wait for the results on demo, in order to identify advantages and disadvantages for further conclusions for the purpose of TS modernization.
About the gazelle's sharpness in the tester, that's true for now. Now it is really easier to debug a strategy on mql4, because optimization with genetic algorithm is very fast. So it is possible to experiment with TS, update and improve it. In MT5 it is not realistic so far due to time and computational costs. Even with Clouds Network the optimization by the genetic algorithm is terribly slow.
So once MT4 and MT5 testers are at least equal in speed, there will be nothing left to catch on MT4.
And I'm not even speaking about graphic frills. Try to convince me that trading without them will not work).
It depends on what you call graphic frills. If some icons and other decorations in the form of non-functional design and other extravagance, then it may be even unnecessary, because everything unnecessary will only hinder and distract from the market analysis. The trading terminal is designed for trading, not for an avant-garde exhibition.
And as for the dialog boxes, this is exactly what is needed for trading. The reason is that if TS requires some specific settings, then users have to write the whole bundles of instructions and they either don't read them or by mistake may configure something wrong. But when it is possible to provide for such exceptional situations in code and display to user a dialog window with hints and opportunities to correct the situation in one click, then this is an undoubtedly necessary functionality.
In addition, do not forget that many people use scripts and Expert Advisors for manual and semi-manual trading, i.e., they automate only a part of the decision-making process, for example, in the form of tips from Expert Advisors, but make decisions themselves. A flexible graphical interface is essential in this case:
This is an interesting discussion.
Let me remind people here - a trading platform exists for traders.
They are the ones who bring in revenue for the brokers. Not programmers.
MQL5 may be 20 times more powerful than 4, and with frills, I do not care.
I am a trader who has learned to code my tasks in MQL4, and it is important to me to have multiple positions, including the counter ones.
That's the way I work. Netting is unacceptable to me.
And as long as there are people like me, MT4 will not die.
Thanks for your consideration.
OnGoing:
I want to repeat my thoughts from 3 years ago.
Most forum users are sitting on two chairs: trading system and programming. Traders have lengthened the "programming" chair to such a length that the "trading system" chair cannot be seen at all.
We are on the site of programmers selling their product. As a result, programmer's ideas develop, the correlation of which with profitable trading is unknown. If we take into account that the tool has become very complex, the correlation is, I think, negative.
Traders are constantly being forced into discussions about programmer "goodies", and "where's the money?"
Example.
The thing that gets carried around the most is the tester. It's a tool for debugging (a very good tool) the logic of a program and nothing more. The tester has no means for debugging the trading strategy. This sequence of "Monte Carlo" symbols is unknown to authors of MQL. The idea of generating a sequence of bars necessary for this TS is even wild.
Talking about the tools (components) for the construction of TS is ridiculous. The set of indicators - in its majority has nothing to do with the trading platform - it is from the generosity of forum participants, often amateurish programs.
I think if so many people immediately have the same thoughts (in favor of quadruple), then it is not just because, it means there is a reason to think so.
It is easy to see that defending the 5-th only "cronies" or sharks local mql-business, namely the prog. prog. who hope either to take a penny at the next boom in the mass transition of the crowd on netting.
Or they themselves naively believe that, well, there it is finally, there it is, happiness is buried, you just need to put more effort and dig deeper. The OOP is what I have been missing so far.