Pouring the object - page 4

New comment
 
Artyom Trishkin:
Your hints to a beginner with a sub-optimal algorithm for constantly deleting and creating an object only hurt him. And it is his "profit" that suffers from it.
That gave me the right to correct you. No more.

OK.

I wrote you - the object is definitely there, why look for it?

And how would NOT excessive command (let's say) affect the profit - here I would love to hear the details argued by the state.
 
Renat Akhtyamov:

OK.

I told you - there's definitely an object, why look for it?

Well and how a NOT excessive command (let's say) will affect the profit - here I would love to hear the details argued by the state.
You don't understand what I wrote about. And what exactly in your example is redundant. And do exactly that for yourself. Just don't give outright nonsense advice to newbies.
I suspect that to turn on the light, you first unscrew the bulb, then screw it in, and only then flick the switch.
 
Artyom Trishkin:
You don't understand what I wrote about. And what exactly in your example is redundant. And do exactly that for yourself. Just don't advise beginners with outright nonsense.
I suspect that to turn the lights on, you first unscrew the bulb, then screw it in, and only then flick the switch.

...reasoned by the state...

I don't read the rest.

And in general, do not dig a hole in MQL, it's a good language that only requires the logic of a trader-programmer.

 
Renat Akhtyamov:

Argued by the state.

I don't read the rest.
This is an attempt at trolling. Instead of admitting your mistake in a masculine way, you are turning on the childishness.
I'll be watching your posts - to keep newcomers safe from your damaging advice.
 
Artyom Trishkin:
This is an attempt at trolling. Instead of admitting your mistake like a man, you're just being childish.
I'll be watching your posts - to protect newcomers from your damaging advice.

I'm begging you, justify your speculation with a statement.

It's easy to blurt it out, but it's easy to justify or prove your point....

It's not gonna work, don't bother.

You will enjoy not only following my posts but also reading them. I assure you!

And lastly.

I will always stand by my proven belief in trading on real accounts and code until proven otherwise.

 
Renat Akhtyamov:

argued by the state.

I don't read the rest.

And in general, don't dig a hole for MQL, it's a good language, it only needs the logic of a trader-programmer.

Well, you have it completely absent. Like the logic of a programmer, and all other possible logics - since you can't understand what I'm talking about.

 
Renat Akhtyamov:
...

I will always stand by my proven belief and code in trading on real accounts until proven otherwise.

You, how shall I put it gently ... Let's say - a completely inexperienced programmer - you show a beginner that he must first delete an object, then create it, and only then set the necessary properties to the object - is it your logic or did your mirage-states tell you to do so?

And the top of, excuse me, ignorance - to appeal to hypothetical states in proving the logic of code construction.

What does the state and faulty logic have to do with it?

You may make a function that will eventually work correctly but waste resources and you may make the same function but correct. And the stack will be the same.

This is not about "size", which you boast about, but which no one has seen, but about logic, and your wrong hint to a beginner, who will then do the same as you - stupid and wrong.

Is this your farm?

//+------------------------------------------------------------------+
void Prn_Rect_Label(string Name, int X, int Y, int width, int height, color CLR, int Corner, bool back)
   {
      ObjectDelete(0,Name);
      ObjectCreate(0,Name,OBJ_RECTANGLE_LABEL,0,0,0);
      ObjectSetInteger(0,Name,OBJPROP_XDISTANCE,X);
      ObjectSetInteger(0,Name,OBJPROP_YDISTANCE,Y);
      ObjectSetInteger(0,Name,OBJPROP_XSIZE,width);
      ObjectSetInteger(0,Name,OBJPROP_YSIZE,height);
      ObjectSetInteger(0,Name,OBJPROP_BGCOLOR,CLR);
      ObjectSetInteger(0,Name,OBJPROP_CORNER,Corner);
      ObjectSetInteger(0,Name,OBJPROP_BACK,back);
      return;
   }

Justify the need to delete a non-existent object to create it.

Don't forget to attach the state.

Justify the need to recreate the object to modify its properties.

Don't forget to attach the stack.

 
Renat Akhtyamov:

try

void Prn_Rect_Label(string Name, int X, int Y, int width, int height, color CLR, int Corner, bool back)
   {
      ObjectDelete(0,Name);
      ObjectCreate(0,Name,OBJ_RECTANGLE_LABEL,0,0,0);



Delete and create on every tick -- that's for you in the "interesting and humour" thread, not the original one, but the one that "banned everything" -- they love such examples and will share them in the English thread -- they will definitely understand you there.

 
Artyom Trishkin:

You, how shall I put it gently ... Let's say - a completely inexperienced programmer - you show a beginner that he must first delete an object, then create it, and only then set the necessary properties to the object - is it your logic or did your mirage-states tell you to do so?

And the top of, excuse me, ignorance - to appeal to hypothetical states in proving the logic of code construction.

What does the state and faulty logic have to do with it?

You may make a function that will eventually work correctly but waste resources and you may make the same function but correct. And the stack will be the same.

The conversation is not about "dimensions", which you boast about, but which no one has seen, but about logic, and your wrong hint to a beginner, who will then do the same as you - stupid and wrong.

Is this your farm?

Justify the necessity of recreating the object to modify its properties.

Don't forget to attach the stack.

Justify the need to delete an object that doesn't exist in order to create it.

Don't forget to attach the state.

I haven't seen your justification.

What are we talking about?

This object is created once in Inite, what's the problem?

And I wrote - depending on the algorithm of work.........

So how does it affect profitability???
 
Renat Akhtyamov:

I haven't seen your rationale.

What are we talking about?

About you, and your complete lack of programming knowledge. Even the simplest ones - the basics, you might say. And you are trying to "help" a beginner, giving him your fake.

And on a quite fair comment on the stupidity of your design, you start babbling about some properties, which are irrelevant to this question...

Nor are you capable of admitting your mistake like a man.

Boring...

1234567891011...13
New comment