MT5 is for programmers, not traders - page 11

New comment
 
George Merts:

It's a mess, frankly.

In 1985, I was introduced to the programmable calculator (thanks to Tehnika-Young magazine). If before that - I was strictly focused on radio electronics, from that moment - I started to move more and more to programming. At first - in calculator commands... Then there was the I8080 assembler and BASIC on the EC-1010 at the institute... Then x86 assembler and then C++ as MSVC.

What a mess. And these people talk about simplicity. You can't even put yourself in a beginner's shoes with all that experience.

I'm a college-educated proger myself, and I'm told it's easy for beginners. Nobody at all takes into account that a beginner comes here not to sell codes at first but to check TSs which are very simple at first steps. If he has to learn a trade that promises no profit for a year, he will have no desire to start.
Volchansky went to university with the consequent certainty of at least some sort of employment. Here, on the other hand, a man has to delve into complexities that may not be worthwhile at all. And his ideas are as elementary as a beginner. And instead of going in 4 and directly begin what he came here to trade, checking his prices. He's engaged in a long study of other things.
 
ILNUR777:
What a mess. And these people talk about simplicity. You can't even put yourself in a beginner's shoes with all that experience.

He is a university-educated progessor himself, and he talks about simplicity for beginners. No one takes into account the fact that a beginner comes here not to sell codes at first, but to check the TS, which are simple in their first couple. If he has to learn a trade that promises no profit for a year, he will have no desire to start.
Volchansky went to university with the consequent certainty of at least some sort of employment. Here, on the other hand, a man has to delve into complexities that may not justify themselves at all. And his ideas are as elementary as a beginner. And instead of going in 4 and directly begin what he came here to trade, checking his prices. He's doing a long study of other things.
There's an SB for simplicity. There's even a reference on all its methods. But it's easier to whine, right?
 
ILNUR777:
What a mess. And these people talk about simplicity. You cannot even put yourself in a beginner's shoes with all this experience.

He is a university-educated progessor himself, and he talks about simplicity for beginners. No one takes into account the fact that a beginner comes here not to sell codes at first, but to check the TS, which are simple in their first couple. If he has to learn a trade that promises no profit for a year, he will have no desire to start.
Volchansky went to university with the consequent certainty of at least some sort of employment. Here, on the other hand, a man has to delve into complexities that may not be worthwhile at all. And his ideas are as elementary as a beginner. And instead of going in 4 and directly begin what he came here to trade, checking his prices. He's engaged in a long study of other things.

Here - I agree. However, one must take into account that it is programmers who gather on this forum, though they don't know anything about physics, but they are very strong "coders". This is their hangout, figuratively speaking. Actually, I have already understood it, that I got a little wrong - but, nevertheless, it is interesting to read.

And just dull-witted people, who have no skills neither in programming, nor in modeling, have to wait for the voice control of orders and lying on a sofa, to announce the room and the computer with incredible in thought trade orders.

 
Sure, the benefits are good. But he will understand it later, when he increases the level of complexity of his "checklists". And he won't be a beginner any more.
Now, explaining the beauty of the opportunities to him is like, I don't know what to compare it to.
Why not just go out of your way to make it easier for this newcomer to enter.
No one's saying the complications aren't worth it.
 
Artyom Trishkin:
There is an SB for simplicity. And even a reference to all its methods. But it's easier to whine, right?
For whose simplicity, yours. I'm curious, how do you determine that? That the SB is so simple and understandable to a beginner, that there is nothing more simple than the help and articles to it.
 
ILNUR777:
Like a parrot, just plain simple.
There's a prime example with Peter. You have experience, but you don't know a thing about OOP. What's there to talk about with newbies.
Why are you deliberately misleading.
If this is another one of your repeated attempts to get off on the wrong foot, you can do it in other ways without losing your conscience.

Yes, I get a jar of jam and a basket of biscuits every week from the methaquotes. )))) Now I see why some PLOs don't fit in their heads - a brain the size of a pea, but a soul full of anger at the whole world.

 
Alexander_K2:

Here - I agree. However, we must take into account that this forum is a gathering of programmers, who, although not really know anything about physics, are very strong "coders". This is their hangout, figuratively speaking. Actually, I already understood it, that I got a little wrong - but it's still interesting to read.

You'd be better to deal with the promised deals)))).
 
Alexey Volchanskiy:

What I've seen is nothing more than generating a template for later refinement

have you seen real diamonds from this class? to generate and not be ashamed to go straight to market ))

I completely agree about the template. You can't make a masterpiece there. But you can get a working basis, which then can be gradually loaded with new functions. It's not intended for professionals, but for fans. I think so, but I may be wrong.
 
Artyom Trishkin:
For simplicity, there is an SB. And there's even a reference on all its methods. But it's easier to whine, right?

Artyom -- that's a good point:

ILNUR777:
... No one takes into account the fact that a beginner comes here not to sell codes initially, but to check the TS, which are many and simple at the beginning. If he has to spend a year studying the craft that doesn't promise profit, he doesn't even want to start.

Keep in mind that MT is an application terminal, which solves applied problems, and I don't think the proportion of users who have programming skills is large.

Take Excel for example - it has cells and a simple table could be programmed without any programming skills - for more advanced and more complex tasks there is VBA.

I have several customers who made small changes in mql4 without any problem - I finish writing the complicated logic for them, and then they "twist" it - but mql5 is too complicated for them, that's all - this is what we are talking about.

Yes, there is freelancing - but there is not enough money for minor changes - and time is the key factor - it's one thing to change the "plus" to "minus" - and another thing to formulate the TOR and wait until they do it.

 
ILNUR777:
For whose simplicity, yours. I'm curious, how do you define that? That the SAT is so simple and understandable to a beginner, that there is nothing more simple than the help and articles to it.

SB is not a textbook example. SB is for problem solving. It has a threshold of entry. Imho, it is not very high, but it is there. Although, again, I agree that SB could have been easier and better written, but it is not, because SB was written by average programmers.

1...456789101112131415161718...23
New comment