A question for OOP experts. - page 21
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
How do OOP experts see a typical trend-following trading system? And first of all - its composition and main functions to extract potential profit.
You open the "TS League" branch and look at the systems. All of them with the word Trend in their names are the systems that work with the trend. Among them there are systems that have been working ona demo account for a long time and making profit.
This is what they look like. The composition of the system is as simple as three kopecks, KodoBase has free Expert Advisors working on these principles.
But, in my League - everything is laden with OOP-style. I was even going to release a software module, which could be used by those who wished, simply by querying TC interfaces. Just at the expense of OOP principles of construction.
Look, I don't want to lower myself to your boorish tone. Let's just say the result rules. Tons of theory is certainly useful, but practice shows everything as it is. You're going to have to compete with me in practice and result. Because your vast mind is churning and churning just one theory.
Peter, eXpert is right. He answered you quite clearly, and I don't see a "boorish tone".
And about the result - also rightly noted, how to measure it? Anyway, an expert will have more results than you.
Peter, eXpert is right. He answered you quite clearly and I don't see a "boorish tone".
And about result - also it is rightly noticed, what to measure it in what? In any case, an expert will have more results than you.
George, let's not continue to have an argument. About the results. For what it's worth, I've created a markup language and graphics that are superior to library graphics. If you understand the level of complexity (unfortunately, probably not), then look at Anatoly Kozharsky's library for a start. Appreciate its size, complexity, the work put in. Impressive, isn't it? And what is the next level? Markup language, with drawing and working elements on the canvas.
In doing so, Anatoly relied on 1.OOP, 2. The standard library (the Convas class), while I was doing everything on my own, without any initial foundation and using my own approach only. These are my achievements.
If the Expert has created something more, I bow my head.
How can there be flooding and trolling in a topic which was originally created for the purpose of flooding and trolling? Peter, confess, you have created the theme not to learn OOP, but to show what a cool user of arrays you are, and that OOP is generally for these very (which Barabashka calls profane), but not for such cool patsaks as you)))
Naturally, in this thread can not be anything but flooding and trolling. And those who write here seriously, keep in mind, all this Peter has already been told more than once.
Dimitri, I would not be so unambiguous. In my opinion, Peter would like to understand why OOP is so good. But with his megamemory OOP really looks like the fifth wheel in the cart. Peter is reasoning in the assembler way. And in assembler - there's no OOP stuff there, just commands and memory addresses... So, Peter considers himself a "tough guy" who has access to all the necessary variables, and uses them the way he needs at any given time, without any "extra" entities.
I vividly remember a similar period - I used to write assembler, and ironically looked at the people writing in FoxPro (they used to write in that office). And it was nice when my entirely assembler-written form input worked much faster than the standard "FoxPro" input (plus it also removed the "snow" on the then CGA monitor), and it was acknowledged by everyone...
But, that period came to an end quite quickly with the increasing power of computers and the increasing size of projects. First I switched to assembly inserts in C-code and authenticated library functions written in assembly, then I abandoned assembly inserts in favour of library functions...
And then - we got a Sun machine, and we needed our programs to work on it... That's when all my library functions didn't fit anymore, even though all my modules were recompiled for Sun-architecture almost without changes. Well, I had to rewrite the library assembler functions into C (without "plus" at that time).
At this point my enthusiasm for assembler ended, and I began to appreciate encapsulation more and more. Soon the first C++ compilers and the OOP paradigm arrived, to which I moved with great pleasure.
But, only for this "pleasure" - the first, "assembler" stage was needed.
Peter hasn't passed that stage yet, so we're waiting...
George, let's not get into an argument. About the results. Anyway, I've created a markup language and graphics that are superior to the library's. If you understand the level of complexity (unfortunately, probably not), look at Anatoly Kozharsky's library for a start. Appreciate its size, complexity, the work put in. Impressive, isn't it? And what is the next level? Markup language, with drawing and working elements on the canvas.
In doing so, Anatoly relied on 1.OOP, 2. The standard library (the Convas class), while I was doing everything on my own, without any initial foundation and using my own approach only. These are my achievements.
If the Expert has created something more, I bow my head.
Yes the level of complexity is clear to me, I've repeatedly said that you're thinking "assembler-style". Nobody argues that the assembly code will always be at least as good as that written with high-level languages, especially using OOP technology. But the unjustified cost of writing in assembler is too high. The fact that you did everything yourself and Anatoly relied on the Standard Library is just a plus for Anatoly.
Tomorrow some major change in the compiler will come out, and you will have to dig through a lot more code than Anatoly did.
Your achievement is similar to that of many Guinness record holders. But I don't think these record breakers will be saying "look how you do it" to those who do the same thing using modern means. Just think, there is a record - a strongman pulled several railway cars for ten meters. If he says "look at my achievement, I do not understand why you need to use the train, when you can pull them by hand", what would you say? Imagine that there is no electricity for the electric train, no fuel for the diesel, and the cars need to be moved... The strongman's experience and his "achievement" will come in handy here. But how realistic is the situation when you have to move cars by yourself, but without electricity and diesel? So with your language and graphics ... That's right, it's a lot of work, and it all works. But why ?
No one argues that the assembly code will always be at least as good as the code written with high-level languages, especially with OOP technology. But it is too much unjustified cost to write it in assembly. The fact that you did everything yourself and Anatoly relied on the Standard Library is just a plus for Anatoly.
Tomorrow a major change in the compiler will come out, and you will have to dig through much more code than Anatoly did.
Your achievement is similar to that of many Guinness record holders. But I don't think these record-breakers will say "look how it's done" to those who do the same thing using modern tools. Just think, there is a record - a strongman pulled several railway cars for ten meters. If he says "look at my achievement, I do not understand why you need to use the train, when you can pull them by hand", what would you say? Imagine that there is no electricity for the electric train, no fuel for the diesel, and the cars need to be moved... The strongman's experience and his "achievement" will come in handy here. But how realistic is the situation when you have to move cars by yourself, but without electricity and diesel? So with your language and graphics ... That's right, it's a lot of work, and it all works. But why ?
surfing the net from the TV, reading chipsnet:
Во время учебы белорусская художница Надя Матиевская получила задание нарисовать картину грудью. Ей понравился этот эксперимент, и теперь она использует для творчества собственный бюст, по крайней мере, столь же часто, как обычные кисти. Посмотрите, что у нее получается!
1. I went to learn OOP so as not to sit in a puddle in front of investors. At the same time, investors were not interested in my knowledge of OOP, but in the results achieved by my approach.
2. Grow up already from this kindergarten, with the transition to personalities.
Peter, your entire thread, and not just this one, is dedicated to discussing one individual.And you do it yourself - about yourself. Just read the "outsider's eye" that runs through all your threads.
Those who do not support your trills of self-praise are those duds and trolls, and those who are admired and enchanted - "friends forever" ?
"The cuckoo praises the rooster for praising the cuckoo" ?
ZS. Investors need trading, not programming methods - they have no use for them at all. Therefore and about them - byStanislavsky.
surfing the net from the TV, reading chipsnet:
She sells self-portraits of her own bust? Very handy then! :)
Peter, your entire thread, and not just this one, is dedicated to discussing one personality.And you do it yourself - about yourself. Just read the "outsider's eye" that runs red line through all your threads.
Those who do not support your self-congratulatory trills are duds and trolls, and those who are admired and enchanted are "friends forever" ?
"The cuckoo praises the rooster for praising the cuckoo" ?
That is your vision. It was about the PLO and my approach. Quote the places where I praised myself.
You went over my personality here https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/320813/page18
Before that, the conversation was purely on a technical topic.