MT4 doesn't have long to live - page 55

New comment
 
joo: those who need it are very few, that's the point.
Those who really need MathArccos() are also very few. But it does exist in the language. How inefficient MetaQuotes are!
 
hrenfx:

So all the developers have to do is remove the restriction(just a few lines of commenting in the tester code). Instead of wasting energy inventing something out there.

The level of understanding of the issues is astounding.


An argument between a theorist and a practitioner:

- Give me a fulcrum and I'll turn the world upside down!

- Yes, and who will build the lever and how? Pushkin with a feather?

Until there are those who find a compromise between theory/desire and the practical possibility of implementation, and then build a working solution, theorists are at ease. Nothing threatens the flight of thought.

 
Mathemat:
Those who really need MathArccos() are also very few. But it does exist in the language. How inefficient MetaQuotes are!
O-O-O-O-O-O +5
 
Mathemat:
Those who really need MathArccos() are also very few. But it does exist in the language. How inefficient MetaQuotes are!
Don't be exaggerated, Alexey. This is a basic matrix and all such functions are available for this reason, regardless of whether someone needs it or not. You know what I mean.
 
Renat:

The level of understanding of the problems is amazing.

A simple hack removed your restriction in the MT4 tester:

hrenfx:
You apparently don't understand that we're talking about a completely artificial constraint on the part of the developers. Here is a simple example of how such restrictions are removed on an MT4 tester through hacking. So why these artificial restrictions? Afraid for the reputation of the tester reports? Well, nothing prevents us from writing in red letters that our testing is performed on a custom report and we are not responsible for the result.

Why are you imposing this restriction on local agents?

P.S. You are introducing cloud math capabilities, which is a great idea, but will be demanded initially by far fewer people than those who need custom history in the tester. Is it possible to compare the complexity of implementation between mathematical cloud computing and the simplest removal of an artificial constraint in the tester on local agents?

 

If Rinat says that this "custom teak/stakan" chip is not useful - is there any point in aggravating it further?

No, it isn't.

Too bad...

 
joo: Don't get your head in a twist, Alexey. It's a basic math apparatus and all such functions are there for that reason, whether anyone needs it or not. You know what I mean.

I understand, of course, but I really want to poke fun at you a bit. So why, why isn't the basic apparatus not included with the function... uh... well, say, MathErfc()?

P.S. On the subject: there are resources which have a tick history for several years - say, http://ratedata.gaincapital.com/. That's where you can download any tick history from and feed it to the tester input. And the responsibility for any conclusions related to the results, let, as always, remain solely on the developer of the system...

 
avatara:

if Rinat says that this "custom teak\stakan" chip is not purposeful - what's the point of escalating it further?

What about forum therapy?
 
avatara:

Well the opening price testing has been refined. A little in the wrong direction as anticipated... But progress is being made.

And there are a lot of those things.

It's true there's more to sharpen. So why not?

 
Mathemat:
I understand, of course, but I really want to poke fun at you a bit. So why, why isn't the basic apparatus not included with the function... er... well, say, MathErfc()?

It too, to everyone's dismay, is not profitable
1...484950515253545556575859606162...83
New comment