Canvas is cool! - page 54
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
Look at the control library for building interfaces in /Controls. There's already space for possibilities there. And there's just enough to go around.
But God forbid 1% of people get there even to see the existence of such possibilities. It's at this step that everything dies - people can't even see the possibilities, not "it's hard for them to use it".
If you've lost 99% of all potential users at entry, then further optimisation of training or stimulation is no longer relevant.
And why lost? Because everyone is too lazy to even look, read or bother.
And the problem cannot be solved by any quick/effective/magical actions. Only by methodical training, which we have been doing for 20 years.
Question: who knows that we have about 500 powerful mathematical functions in the standard library, similar to the basic functionality of R?
A cross-question: how many and which "most powerful" and "simplest" MQL functions of their total number
is enough to write a fully functional and potentially the most profitable Expert Advisor for any
of the world's major currency pairs?
A follow-up question: how many and which of the "most powerful" and "simplest" MQL functions
is enough to write a fully functional and potentially the most profitable Expert Advisor for any
of the world's major currency pairs?
and this is unknown, so the more functionality the better.
and this is unknown, so the more functionality the better.
It doesn't have to be 'the more the better'. The "necessary amount" of one, the other and possibly the third is sufficient
which is unknown, so the more functionality the better.
I agree. It is absolutely unknown what functionality is vital for successful trading. There is no general rule.
There are no problems with the general rules of forex trading any currency pairs. The problems are in their clear tracking, programming and execution of responses.
Most users would probably want CCanvas, CGrafic and CCanvas3D to be applications that produce the visuals they need, rather than classes that require knowledge of OOP principles and syntax. And not just to know, but essentially to build their own visualisation system, as Nicholas does.
Well if you remember Borland, the GUI was assembled in a visual editor, throw a layout of controls on a panel, and then you write the handlers.
If ME had such a graphical feature to build layouts in visual mode, it would greatly simplify the construction of graphical applications.
As the majority of modern programmers who studied GUI building are used (so they were taught) to visual graphic editor,
and to build the layout of graphical applications on pure C-style code is of little interest. Since it's already hardcore C-style.
We need a visual editor to build a graphical application, and then people will be eager to learn it, and those who worked in VS or RadStudio, they will quickly master the visual editor.
Perhaps most users want CCanvas, CGrafic and CCanvas3D to be applications that produce the required visualizations, rather than classes that require knowledge of OOP principles and syntax. And not just to know, but essentially to build their own visualisation system, as Nicholas does.
I fully support the need to have the ability to build...
But whether it is necessary or not is another question.
I wonder if the developers themselves see the terminal as a trading tool or a programming tool?
I may be wrong at this point, but I always thought that ME was made for realization of that functionality, which users need for trading. Exactly trading!
But nowadays the depth of programming in ME has gone into areas where you really need to be able to "build" dice and have a very serious understanding of programming....
And what does this lead to in the end? It leads to the fact that advanced trading tools become available only to experienced programmers!
That is, if you're not a programmer, you have nothing to do in trading... But this is absurd.
ME is only an assistant to fill in the missing functionality, which would be more correctly built into the terminal itself (different wizards).
And in fact ME is now evolving as a new development environment, requiring more and more knowledge from users.
Based on this conclusion, the visualization tools are necessary, but their use should be available to users who do not have deep knowledge in programming.
Only in this case they will be in demand.
This is only my opinion and I don't impose it on anyone.
Renat Fatkhullin:
Only by methodical training, which we have been doing for 20 years.
I fully support the need to have the ability to collect...
But whether it is necessary or not is another question.
I wonder if the developers themselves see the terminal as a trading tool or a programming tool?
I may be wrong at this point, but I always thought that ME was designed to implement exactly the functionality that the user needs for trading. Exactly trading!
But nowadays the depth of programming in ME has gone into areas where you really need to be able to "build" dice and have a very serious understanding of programming....
And what does this lead to in the end? It leads to the fact that advanced trading tools become available only to experienced programmers!
That is, if you're not a programmer, you have nothing to do in trading... But this is absurd.
ME is only an assistant to fill in the missing functionality, which would have been more correctly built into the terminal itself (different wizards).
And in fact ME is now evolving as a new development environment, requiring more and more knowledge from users.
Based on this conclusion, the visualization tools are necessary, but their use should be available to users who do not have deep knowledge in programming.
Only in this case they will be in demand.
This is only my opinion and I am not imposing it on anyone.
Then explain why MetaTrader4 is so popular, that you can't drag me away from it? After all, five has everything that was in four + a lot of things that were not even dreamed of there.
What the housewives couldn't dream of is beyond their grasp. But what was in the four and is in the five - why is it no longer enough for them? There used to be enough in four. They wrote their own programmes and couldn't get enough of them. And now there is nothing to stop them from being on the same level and writing their own programmes in the same way. But for some reason they moan and say it's hard... It hasn't gotten harder - it's the same. I'm not saying that they should get into things that they can't handle, but the simplest things (like 4) are available to them here too - you can write as much as you want...
Most likely, as it seems to me - it's just a terrible force of habit and laziness to tear one place from the settled, which prevent "to throw out the old hat".