Has anyone created a successful automated trading system? What is your advice? - 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
especially Object.mqh.
right from the books you unluckily quote...brilliant pattern :-)
The topic is not about how well you've mastered the OOP course and learned to advocate it... in my opinion it's a shitty mastering
Anyway, get your textbooks and go to school tomorrow.
What pattern are you talking about and how I suck at OOP? I haven't said anywhere that MQL5 is a fully OOP language, I've just said that it is much closer to OOP than MQL4.
Will knowledge of OOP make my dream of making 200 out of 100 quid any closer?
A knowledge of OOP will facilitate writing code, save time and further code development. If you've written a bot which makes $100 2 times earlier then you've got more money. Isn't it so? And it would be much easier to modify it so that it starts making $110. Here's more money. You have avoided a bug that could have led to your deposit - here is more money. In addition, count your time in money. If a bot is 1000 lines of code, you may write it in assembler. But object languages were created to write complex code compactly, quickly and clearly.
Which pattern are you referring to and in what way do I suck at OOP? I haven't said anywhere that MQL5 is a fully OOP language, I've just said that it is much closer to OOP than MQL4.
A knowledge of OOP will make code writing easier, it will save time and further code development. If you have written a bot that makes $100 twice as fast, you have made more money. Isn't it so? And it would be much easier to modify it so that it starts making $110. Here's more money. Avoid bugs, which may have led to loss of your deposit - here is more money. In addition, count your time in money. If a bot is 1000 lines of code, you may write it in assembler. But object languages were created to write complex code compactly, quickly and clearly.
Which pattern are you referring to and in what way do I suck at OOP? I haven't said anywhere that MQL5 is a fully OOP language, I've just said that it is much closer to OOP than MQL4.
A knowledge of OOP will make code writing easier, it will save time and further code development. If you have written a bot that makes $100 twice as fast - then you got more money. Isn't it so? And it would be much easier to modify it so that it starts making $110. Here's more money. You have avoided a bug that could have led to your deposit - here is more money. In addition, count your time in money. If a bot is 1000 lines of code, you may write it in assembler. But the object languages were created to write complex code in a compact, quick and clear manner.
to school... he fucking languages are different... list the differences
especially Object.mqh
What's wrong with it?
I inherited all of my objects from it. Moreover, I've introduced a descendant class CMyOject so that at any point of code you can understand which object is under the pointer.
Also, the class encapsulates a virtual comparison method, which is quite useful.
What's wrong with it?
I inherited all my objects from it. Moreover, I've introduced a CMyOject class as a descendant so that we can understand at any point of code which object is under the pointer.
The class also encapsulates a virtual comparison method, which is quite useful.
The presence of m_prev m_next fields in the "mother of all objects". Deep hierarchies are not good at all, and it's ubiquitous here. This is a kind of TurboVision about trading.
But it was already discussed and discussed many times. And this theme of this forum is not about that.
by having m_prev m_next fields in "mother of all objects". Deep hierarchies are not good at all, and it's ubiquitous here. This is a kind of TurboVision about trading.
But it was already discussed and discussed many times. And this forum topic isn't really about that.
I am constantly using these fields, it's a very useful thing, the lists are easy to create. And if you don't use them, they will be excluded by the optimizer when building the executable.
You, as a señor, are completely abstracted from function body realisations.
Vadim, everything you have written here, I almost understand. And perhaps I will take the time to master the interesting material.
However, private trading is a case of individualists. No more than three, not even two, but one. Just a personal code. And the size... What can you write in a few thousand lines? A program that retrains and adapts to every pattern of the past, maybe.
Vadim, everything you have written here, I almost understand. And perhaps I will take the time to master the interesting material.
However, private trading is the business of individuals. No more than three, not even two, but one. Just a personal code. And the size... What can you write in a few thousand lines? A program that retrains and adapts to every pattern of the past, perhaps.
For a few thousand lines you can write the matrix, work with the base, gateways to other exchanges, calculation of additional parameters of statistics... In my opinion, simple bots on a couple of indicators don't work for a long time, and if they do they work with huge variance and only on optimizer kicked out. For profitable systems (not X, but stable) in my opinion, you need a complex mathematical apparatus, which is exactly the one that takes many lines of code. But this is my personal belief....
For profitable systems (not X, but stable) in my opinion
Do you have at least 1 profitable system?
As a minimum, finally got rid of a bunch of telescope functions and most importantly, a standard library with a huge number of useful classes has been added.
I apologise in advance for the nubby questions). This is what function the telescopes from the 4 Cycle is not transferred to the 5. I do not know such (except for stock environment management, it is different in essence). If you can clarify.
And apparently we are talking about different things, I mean the syntax of the languages, you give the example of the environment of the languages in the form of libraries, inserts and other code. And the capabilities of the terminal and meta-editor. In 5ka it's more complicated with more features. Libraries are an overLanguage to simplify the code. You can use MKL5, and you can write shorter ones with SeaTrade. And in 4ka you can write it in MKL4 without having access to exchange settings of orders and possibilities to see their real execution in the form of deals and states of positions. This is not necessary for practicing the algorithms. To improve the speed and percentage of orders execution, to have the fastest access to the state of orders, deals and positions - this is another task.
The code with classes is reproduced in both languages without any changes. Inheritance, ranked visibility of different entities, custom data types, single method operation with different data types are in both languages.
MCL is not pure OOP in any case, because the terminal environment assumes a response only by request, and events in the terminal are returned by constant algorithms to the terminal, respectively without callback functions can not do....
These are properties of the terminal environment that cannot be removed from the language properties, but the basic properties of OOP are present in both languages.