Indicators: SolarWinds - page 9

New comment
 

So, mates,

well, the three of you have already clashed really badly.

Well, three pages can still be tolerated, but it's already the fifth. With the third pipsqueak.

It's time to end it without violence.

 
sergeev:

It's about time we all decided what we're fighting for.

That's the thing, we're not the ones who need to decide.
 
Yedelkin:

Kick-Ass 3. You wind up a gramophone that has already sung its own. "They" wind up this record before the court about error and lose every time, because the right to error is real. Allowing or not allowing it is just a form of exercising the right. Invigorate your mental faculties and look for cases where 'error is tolerated'. And that is your unaccepted 'right to error'.

Yep, same old horseradish and carrot gramophone.
 
sergeev:


it's time to call it a day.


Okay
 
sergeev: п about the text of this post, it is the idea of redrawing the indicator that is criticised there, but not programming errors in the code.
A very good remark. Then let's decide whether the programmer's code should take into account the necessity of indicator redrawing. Or is it acceptable to provide mql5 users with an indicator that does not redraw indicator indicators at the right moment?
 
Yedelkin:
Very good remark. Let's then decide on the question of whether the programmer's code should take into account the need to redraw the indicator. Or is it acceptable to provide mql5 users with an indicator that does not redraw indicator indicators at the right moment?
create a poll. :)
 
With this fisher, the programmer who rewrites it is between two fires. On the one hand, the indicator should not be redrawn. On the other hand, due to a mistake made by someone once, a community of adherents of redrawing indicators has formed, who need it exactly in the redrawing form.
 
sergeev: create a poll. :)
%) What's the use of such a poll... Well, a hundred people will say something differently - the rules of code placement won't change from that. If I had free time - I would personally check 95% of codes. And so - I have to agree that the filling of the codebase depends solely on the conscience of the authors of codes on mql5.
 
sergeev:

It's time for everyone to decide what we are fighting for

1. a) clean codebase and b) absence of some algorithms (redrawing, inapplicability in practice, etc.)

2. or for error-free code with no run-time errors (array overflow, division by 0, etc.).

It's just, apparently, a) - it's time for more meaningful filling of the base.

b) Inapplicability in practice - is it an algorithm? Redrawing is a user-defined thing, some people need it, some don't.

2. If it's not checking the code practically, in the terminal, before posting it - I don't know. I assumed that it is done by default. And how else?


It's not about GODZILLA.

Did you have to fill the database? We have to. Who agreed to sign up? And who's ready to jump in now? Maybe someone rewrote the code alternatively?

In general, I suggest: the topic should be cleaned up, the question should be put in a separate thread, GODZILLA should be left alone (personally, his code pieces help me if I can't find other options).

 
TheXpert:

Just real -- I'm probably the only one allergic to these beautiful useless colouring toys already.

Just not quite an adequate reaction to a somewhat heated remark about an existing bug.

Our codepasterhas become a bit of a star .

+1

But our opinion is of no use. Except that we can discuss it if we have nothing else to do )

123456789
New comment