What is a tester's Grail? - page 17
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 can work out which one.
Taking a new indicator. Some kind of tricky price-chain. The indicator without any special features is made in half an hour.
If I use OOP-tools, it will take twice as much time to create this indicator, first, to provide a universal virtual interface in my library, plus to create this indicator "according to accepted protocol formalities" in the data provider. Plus much time was spent to create the whole structure of virtual interfaces of interaction between data provider and Expert Advisor, as well as separate indicators and timeseries inside the data provider.
BUT.
After that - the data provider will provide export of the virtual interface of this indicator, as well as all other indicators that it "knows". As a result, changing one channel to another in the code is very easy - when requesting the data provider of the channel indicator - you simply specify the identifier of the new indicator in the request structure. After that, the Expert Advisor begins to work with this new channel without any problems.
In addition, in case of any errors or modifications, this work becomes much easier due to the formalized access. And most importantly - due to encapsulation - I'm working with a limited number of entities at any given time, which greatly reduces the load on my memory - I've already mentioned it more than once.
That is, the main obstacles of OOP are in development. And not in the computer's computational resources at all.
To summarize: OOP requires additional resources during development and creation but saves resources in use and maintenance. And since it's always harder for me to maintain than to write something new - I choose OOP, and so far I've never regretted it. (That said, I occasionally make something "by hand" - without any OOP-interfaces).
This has nothing to do with development time. It was about execution overhead.
1. If I want an accountant, I don't care about gender. If I want a girl, I don't care if she is an accountant or not.
2. If I don't really feel any difference, then there isn't one.
sad. it's like a colour-blind person, you can explain red colour to him no matter how much you explain, if he can't see it, it's always green for him. cross the road in any place.
Respectfully.
1. If I want an accountant, I don't care about gender. If I want a girl, I don't care if she is an accountant or not.
2. If I don't really feel any difference, then there isn't one.
Exactly like this: The virtualisation of feeling will prevent you from seeing the real difference, and you will be convinced that there is no difference when in reality there is one. This can be fatal -- and you become a victim, a victim of virtualisation.
We'll call you Virtual Overlord ))
Yes, you can also call me "victim" - as suggested above... They're partly right...
This has nothing to do with development time. It was about the execution overhead.
Well, here I was speaking out on my own impressions. I don't see any difference in speed, either in case of OOP-wrappers or working directly with data in arrays and variables.
But I obviously need more time for development. I'm compensated only at the expense of maintainability. Accordingly, everything I do "more than once" - I always write in OOP-form. The things I know I'll never need twice - I write them without any virtual functions, polymorphism and other OOP-hacks.
From time to time I face situations when I've got back to needing something that I thought I would never need, and I'm disappointed that I didn't write it in OOP-form right away. And vice versa - when I spend quite a lot of time on OOP-wrapping, and then, after a certain period of time I see that what I've done here will never be useful to me... And I get the question - "why did I do all this?"
let's get back to the grails))) WHERE are the grails?
Yes, you can be a "victim" - as suggested above... They're partly right...
With respect.
Можно есть всё, НО в меру!!!!! Мера должна присутствовать и в сексе, и в спорте, и в работе, короче ГАРМОНИЯ во всём))))) Що занадто, то не здраво. (Доктор)
let's get back to the grails))) WHERE are the grails?
Already answered in the thread title:
the grails are in the tester!
Already answered in the thread title:
graaly - in the tester!
))))))))))))
I've always suspected that the grail tester charts in the market are shot like this: