programmer with a minimum of garantee - page 8

New comment
 
delyus:

This topic once again discussed the axiom "it makes no sense to pay a programmer", because if an EA is worthwhile, it does not need the client's pennies, and if it is not worthwhile, the client does not need it.


Absolutely wrong conclusion!

Why is everything about experts?

i write indicators, and not just indicators!

accounting programs ... I write indicators, accounting programs ... and clients are happy!

I do not know what to do with them, I just do not know what to do with them.

MF_Break_Down

it is one of the simplest and most effective!

for example on a downward trend, the signal is understood as an opportunity to buy more

we just have to coordinate it with our TS

we are mostly techies here - and many are imbued with skepticism - well, someone makes money writing programs for the market

there are people who really make money in the market - well, not many of them - but they do exist

 
YuraZ:

'Have you seen a drawing like this?'

MF_Break_Down

One of the simplest and most effective and people use it in their trading strategies!

For example, on a downward trend, the signal is understood as an opportunity to buy more

we simply have to coordinate it with our TS.

That's right, that's right. I also have my eye on it, although I see it as additional and not basic to MTS. I do not see the point in paying for it, grow up and write a similar one myself, especially since there is a very similar analogue in free access.

As for whether or not a programmer should get paid to produce an MTS that would make him rich, my opinion is that he should - "order must be in the library! And in the case of writing the Grail, a hundred quid is no longer a talking point.

 
It's a strange world, you can often get a great job done for free, and sometimes even for money they screw around - this phenomenon is typical and characteristic of almost everything, even for women. I once worked as a hairdresser for fun, substituting for a friend, but if your hand is used to cutting hair well, no monetary considerations will allow it to take a piece of hair away. And if you don't know how, no matter how much you pay, you won't get it. Still, the programmer takes the money upfront if he knows in advance that the idea is useless and knows that the client will be disappointed when he looks at the fallen piker and his ardour will die out like a cold cucumber butt, that is, the programmer is simply deceiving. And if the idea is interesting to the programmer himself, nothing will make him refuse to implement it, even if you pay him money not to do it.)) work thrills, the tester sings, time flies imperceptibly like the night with the princess, and there is a big chunk of money ahead. and the client, seeing a 45 degree right nine, is unlikely to resist the temptation of paying the programmer, even though it will be pennies compared to what a profitable system can give.
 
delyus:
all the same, the programmer takes the money in advance if he knows, again in advance, the unsuitability of the idea and knows that the client, having looked at the dropping piker, will obviously be disappointed and the fervour he has kindled will fade like a butt with a cold cucumber, that is, the programmer is simply being cunning.
delyus, you are clearly overdoing it here. Regardless of what system the coder gets commissioned with, it is quite reasonable to expect to be paid, and cunning has nothing to do with it.
 
Mathemat:
delyus:
all the same, the programmer charges in advance if he knows in advance the unsuitability of the idea and knows that the client, looking at the dwindling piker will obviously be disappointed and the flared ardour will fade like a butt with a cold cucumber, that is, the programmer is simply cheating.
delyus, you are clearly overdoing it here. Regardless of what system the coder gets commissioned with, it is quite reasonable to expect to be paid, and cunning has nothing to do with it.

If the programmer knows something beforehand, then this knowledge is also worth something, because a lot of time has been spent on obtaining it.

If the client asks to assess the suitability of an idea, this is also a service that must also be paid for, because the client has contacted a specialist, knowing in advance that he or she will have to pay for his or her services.

 

Assessing the suitability of an idea is no longer the programmer's job, except in the simplest cases. If it is just a two-machine system, which the client is going to run on M1, the programmer can tell it for free, knowing it is not suitable - but he may not, because the client often greatly exaggerates the value of his ideas, and it is useless to advise anything. And if the system is more sophisticated and the coder has never done anything like that, it is no longer his responsibility to evaluate the idea.

 
Mathemat:

Assessing the suitability of an idea is no longer the programmer's job, except in the simplest cases. If it is just a two-machine system, which the client is going to run on M1, the programmer can tell it for free, knowing it is not suitable - but he may not, because the client often greatly exaggerates the value of his ideas, and it is useless to advise anything. And if the system is more sophisticated and the coder hasn't done anything like that, the coder is no longer responsible for evaluating the idea.


All true, this is the bread of the trading system developers, but the programmer often has to be an expert in this field as well.

In general, the final result of coding a system in the form of an Expert Advisor is the evaluation of the idea

 
But what about this contradiction: a programmer can evaluate the value of an idea in almost 2 seconds, so what makes him or her produce code in 99% of cases (statistics) of unprofitable ideas of naive clients? :))
 
delyus:
But what about this contradiction: a programmer can evaluate the value of an idea in almost 2 seconds, so what makes him or her produce code in 99% of cases (statistics) of unprofitable ideas of naive clients? :))


Because the client is always right. Because the programmer is approached to write a program, not to perform an expert review. Even if you apply for an expert opinion, it must also be worth it. And most importantly, the highest value is the freedom from illusion. The programmer does not know - whether the customer dreams of a pipe dream of a magic button, one click on which will become the ruler of the world, or a real trader with a head, who just need a helper, at least of the same two ma or stochastic.

 

a head trader who just needs a helper, at least from the same 2MA or stochastic//

(I understand we're speaking in generalities, but I have to smirk a bit: head trader and 2MA and stochastic are incompatible))) especially how would a smart trader look for a programmer for Ma and Stoch, when there's an ocean of EAs and 2 more drops in the free market, moreover, how could he not know that they give 50% at initial testing with equal Take and Stop, however much you bend, and 70% otherwise it's useless.

12345678910
New comment
Reason: