A question for OOP experts. - page 44
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
The objects themselves will not do this. You select the properties of one fruit from the database, the properties of another fruit, combine (leave something, discard something) - you get a new fruit - add it to the database.
That's if we're talking about terms - words. But a fruit is not just a fruit - it's a material and biological object, and its chain of inheritance goes through Matter, Botany, ...Everything in those objects is its "inheritance".
It's not just a word. It is a gigantic complex of linked hereditary chains of information.
This is in the case if we are talking about terms - words. But after all, a fruit is not just a fruit - it is a material and biological object, and its chain of inheritance runs through the objects Matter, Botany, ... Everything that is in those objects is its "inheritance".
It's not just a word. It's a gigantic complex of linked inheritance chains of information.
Please - any properties are added to the table. You can add one more column to the fruit table - the id of the parent, and it will be possible to build infinite hierarchies.
You can add another table, to categorise the properties into categories (and another one for category names).
The relevant toolkit is laid out. No one needs it except the author.
And there is also a need for one. But no one will need it either.
Same situation with KB, articles, etc.
Developers have introduced custom characters, services, ticks, caches, pips,.... I'm surprised they've done that, as it's only a few, if any, who need it.
Let's take the new pips mode of the tester. Who needs it? -No one in fact! It was born as a vision of a significant algorithmic optimization of the tester on the part of its developers. Who understood its usefulness? -Nobody! And so in everything.
Now the Tester is being significantly modified. But these modifications are of no use to anybody. Well, there are geeks who will appreciate it. In its current form, MT5-Tester is cooler than all its competitors. But for some reason they want to make it even cooler. No one is able to assess its current features, not to mention future ones. The developers are several heads above their users. And clearly the motivation for changes in Tester is not monetization (it simply can't exist, if no one understands), but an internal desire to do something unprecedented.
I`ve been thinking about your opinion, I don`t understand why Metakvot spend so much effort on something that will not be demanded by either traders or programmers - the level of MT5 knowledge needed to fully use all available functionality ... well, at least 2 years sitting at MT and studying what it can do - I`m judging by myself, I`m testing a lot, reading a lot, but anyway, I`ve never studied half of it, even taking into account that there`s a forum with support and activity on forum!
i suppose that the search for the most optimal algorithms in MT5 is going on with Metaquotes in order to release MT7 after MT4 is killed finally that will probably take into account the best of MT4 and MT5 - i didn't expect that the developers are reading a lot, what they write on the forum, they take into account a lot, it is clear that a lot of time is spent on upgrades
ЗЫ: МТ7....ибо 7 is old-school, for Vin7 is like a legend ....)))))
ZS: MT4 will be nailed for sure, support for 32 bit MT5 is disconnected, it means they will not do anything else in MT4 - now all the upgrades for MT4 are done in parallel with MT5
...
ZS: MT4 will be killed for sure, support for 32-bit MT5 has already been switched off, it means they will not do anything else in MT4 - now all the upgrades to MT4 are done in parallel with MT5
If we want to nail MetaTrader4, all brokerage companies that use it should switch to MetaTrader5. How realistic is it to do it quickly?
If we want to nail MetaTrader4, all brokerage companies using it should switch to MetaTrader5. How realistic is it to do this quickly?
if you look at the histories of all the companies with the name. they have always done it by force, i.e. stop support and offer more favourable conditions for using new software
ZS: I already remembered about my switch from Win95 to Win98, new hardware stopped supporting Win95, had to crawl over to Win98 - it's the same everywhere in business, there is a contract with big players and users will be forced to use it. But it's not all so sad, users are always divided into those who like something new - they will jump over themselves and those who "work - don't touch!" - They'll have to deal with it when they're in the minority.
if you look at the histories of all the companies with the name. they have always done it by force, i.e. stop support and offer more favourable conditions for using new software
ZS: I already remembered about my move from Win95 to Win98, new hardware stopped supporting Win95, had to crawl over to Win98 - this is how it is everywhere in business, a contract with big players happens and users will be forced to use it. But it's not all so sad, users are always divided into those who like something new - they will jump over themselves and those who "work - don't touch!" - They'll have to deal with them when they're in the minority.
That's the thing, you can negotiate with the companies, but with the users ...
Well today we have already seen how people write their programmes. You get the data (is it?) and immediately send it out. What was sent - "I'm not looking and will not look", but "why it's not working" - questions immediately to the forum. And for some reason that's how many MQL4 users write. However, they always need to control the received data regardless of the platform and programming language. But people believe that they don't need it in MQL4. Why(?) - contingent.
I.e. the user level is on the primary school level. Those who are writing programs correctly initially, they see no difference between MQL4 and MQL5 - all the same.
And the conclusion is that schoolchildren vote with their feet for the platform. And it's harder to get them to start writing their programs properly. Their argument is - "It works - do not touch it", and if it stops working (well, the level of their programs is known to us), then who is to blame? Of course, "MetaQuotes is to blame", saying that they "broke everything with their update", and sometimes their OS is also to blame.
I don't understand why Metakvot spend so much effort on something that will no longer be in demand by traders or programmers
Well, they have a list of priority tasks. The tasks are logical, and they're getting their hands on them little by little. They are simply guided not by competing solutions, but by their own vision of what is right. At a certain stage you can forget about monetization, putting the desire to make it just cool in the first place.
By tester, I use everything but Cloud. And missing some things.
By language - I use everything (except sockets and integration with C#) and is fully sufficient.
Debug and profiler- yes.
For indicators and bars - not enough.
Ticks - sufficient enough.
Services - I use them, I don't see any opportunities for improvement.
Python - no.
I do 100% of my research using MT5. TC's debugging - 95%. But I can't do it even close without my own tools.
What keeps me from moving to another Tester (including writing my own).
Notice that these are not all pluses, just the ones that hold up. All in all, using almost everything and even developers in free mode.
But by Tester I see a lot more things that I would use as soon as they appear.
That's the thing: you can negotiate with companies, but with users...
Well today we have already seen how people write their programmes. They get the data (is it?) and immediately send it. What was sent - "do not look and will not look", but "why it does not work" - questions immediately on the forum. This is the reason why so many developers write in MQL4, while it's always necessary to control the received data regardless of the platform and programming language . But people believe that they don't need it in MQL4. Why(?) - contingent.
I.e. the user level is on the primary school level. Those who are writing programs correctly initially, they see no difference between MQL4 and MQL5 - all the same.
And the conclusion is that schoolchildren vote with their feet for the platform. And it's harder to get them to start writing their programs properly. Their argument is - "It works - do not touch it", and if it stops working (well, the level of their programs is known to us), then who is to blame? Of course, it is MetaQuotes' fault, saying that they "broke everything with their update", and sometimes it is also their OS' fault.
Not at all.
Not like that at all.
Well, that's what I was talking about.
...
I used to breed spherical platypuses in a vacuum. Green, blue, orange platypuses perfectly adapted to the vacuum and gamma rays of space. I advertised them, I presented them, and I myself believed they were necessary. I was told - no need. In vain. I told them otherwise. Now, I say to all those who say so,do not breed spherical platypuses in a vacuum. Nobody needs them.
Don't be offended, gentlemen. You taught me that.)