Will OOP be in demand in MQL5?

New comment
 

I'm not a programming pro, just an advanced (maybe not so advanced))) graphomaniac.

The OOP approach to create indicators that "grind numbers" doesn't seem to me optimal in terms of performance. Proceduralism would be more economical. Maybe, in Expert Advisors?


What do you think, programmers?

 
Let's have a look at the performance. And then we'll see.
 
Svinozavr >> :

I'm not a programming pro, just an advanced (maybe not so advanced))) graphomaniac.

The OOP approach to create indicators that "grind numbers" doesn't seem to me optimal in terms of performance. Proceduralism would be more economical. Maybe in Expert Advisors?


In a nutshell. OOP is a means of developing large and extra-large projects, and from a pragmatic point of view, with good class libraries (built-in or own), the code becomes more compact and readable, hence containing fewer annoying bugs.

 
OneDepo >> :

In a nutshell. OOP is a means to develop large and supersized projects, and from a pragmatic point of view, having good class libraries (embedded or own) makes code more compact and readable, hence containing fewer annoying bugs.


I'm aware of the two words, that's why I ask: do we need this? If yes, what would you like to see created this way? I personally lack imagination - I can't imagine big or extra-large projects in MQL.

 
Svinozavr писал(а) >>

I am aware of the two words, that is why I ask: do we need this? If so, what would you like to see created this way? I personally do not have enough imagination - I can't imagine big and super large projects in MQL.

I think so: if using OOP will increase your profits in Forex, then it makes sense to use it, and if not, then what for?

 
Svinozavr >> :

I am aware of the two words, that is why I ask: do we need this? If so, what would you like to see created this way? I personally do not have enough imagination - I can't imagine big and super large projects in MQL.

If you are "in the subject", remember that OOP was created to code a) quickly b) well. You need it ;)

 
OneDepo >> :

Well, if you are "in the loop", remember that OOP was created to code a) quickly b) well. You need it ;)

Have you forgotten about redundancy? ;)

The main advantage of OOP is fast program creation, but not program performance.

 
"coding fast" = creating programmes quickly ;) I didn't say anything about fast performance.
 
OneDepo >> :
"code fast" = create programs quickly ;)

What are you interested in, the process or the end result?)

I am interested in both, but the end result is somehow more. ("... OOP gives you many ways to slow down your programs...")

I don't see where OOP would allow me to write faster than with a procedural approach, and that would outweigh all the disadvantages of OOP. It's clear who needs it - the developer who writes for others.

 
Svinozavr >> :

And you don't forget redundancy, do you? ;)

oo

Svinozavr wrote >>)

What are you interested in, the process or the end result?)

More maintenance and refinement.

I am both, but the result is somehow more. ("... OOP gives you many ways to slow down your programs...")

... If you don't know how to use it

I don't see where OOP would allow me to write faster than with a procedural approach, and that would outweigh all the disadvantages of OOP. Who needs it is exactly clear - the developer who writes for others.

List the disadvantages of OOP. Tell me how you can use OOP to slow down programs for a critical time. The 2% difference does not count. And it's not even the fact that it's in favour of FP.

 
µl4 works as an interpreter. µl5 will generate machine codes. Consequently, 5 will be much faster. OOP in this case will not slow down to the speed of 4. + many things can be implemented in 5 that you could only dream of in 4.
123456789
New comment
Reason: