I find that the existing MQL4 tutorials and texts and reference material are fine to read through to learn about MQL4 by topic and aspect, but are not at all well structured and laid out when one is writing an MQL4 program and having problems there. i.e. they are not very useful to refer to by compile error message and when having difficulty writing a program for one new to MQL4. Sections for structure of the different types of programs using different aspects of MQL4 do not exist so that all current learning MQL4 texts lack for cohesive logical sequence. i.e. in general they are not good to use as a logical reference for particular problems and questions.
Does anyone know of a more cohesive and logically-structured set of notes that are good to learn from and also good as a reference for particular perhaps one-off questions and issues. e.g. wav-files are discussed but but not always with regards format, data-type, initialization etc. Gaps exist in the body of knowledge which is not comprehensive, all-encompassing of what is needed to know and well-structured logically and sequentially. Ig they were then a particular question or detail could have an almoost immediate answer, which is not the case. One can spend hours searching texts for a particular detail. I get the feeling that if I live to be 580 years old I will become a good MQL4 programmer.
As a mainframe programmer I learned and know well about 6 programming languages, and every one of them was far easier to learn and apply effectively, in that the various body of knowledge texts available and references available were many times far better structured and far easier to use than this shambles of MQL4 is.
Subjects such as structured COBOL programming including every aspect possibe about COBOL, compilers, error messages, the run environment and about the Adabas data Base, the Editor and the asociated Natural programming language, DB2, SQL, complex subjeetcs such as utilities, JCL etc. were always far easier to find and learn from both in theory and in starting to actually program and use.
Since the PC graphics-oriented internet anguages which are supposedly higher-level (i.e closer to everday language and easier to undestand and use) have arrived, thaey are all exponentially far more mathematical, formulae and hirogliphics in essence and none of them have easier and comprehensive learning and usage texts. THIS IS ADVANCEMENT? It seems to be far more a case of 'bullshit baffles brains' and 'see how clever I am'.
In truth, Metaquotes have developed a language to an extent that is far more detailed and messy to learn and use than it needs to be. Instead of then developing it much forther they have left it at a more basic and stupidly more difficult and complex level than it needs to be. One could do everything that MQL4 offers with the far simpler and much easier to use COBOL CICS MACRO COMMAND LEVEL LANGUAGE with the addition of a few drawing instructions.
It seems to me that in the pursuit of advancement we have made most technical things exponenially messier and more difficult and complicated. Worse, the MQL4 techies can write loads about MQL4 details and intracacies but are utterly unable to put together a comprehensive and useful structured explanation of the language. Keep it simple stupid - the old KISS adage - seems to have been thrown away.
The trick in writing about a complex and technical subject is to write about it in such a way as to make it as simple as possible to understand. Here the MGl4 gurus and experts have failed miserably. Admittadly, they have done so with a horrible topic - which goes back to the piece of crud that Metaquotes developed partially and no more.
No, this is not a joke. In my experience the more advanced we get in programming languages, the more muddling and difficult to use and understand that they become. And the far more
unreliable that systems have become.
I say this based on about 15 years with mainframe programming experience, and so my view is a relative one.
In general, the standards and quality control have dropped enormously since the growth of the PC industry and the INternet compared to those that existed when I worked
as a progrmmer and project manager in the mainframe arena.
Typically with applications running under Windows, all sorts of problems and errors occur continually. This was not the case earlier befoe the Internet etc.
In my days on mainframes, such a low quality of service would simply have been completely unaccetable. Before I put something into the live environment, I made absolutely
as sure as possible that errors were not going to occur. My and our quality control and service level was exponentially above what it has become with PCs and the Internet.
Unless you have have the same relative experience that I have and do actually beleive that standards with PCs are acceptable (which is rediculous), I feel that your question/comment of 'is it a joke?' is rather ignorant.
I am speaking from an experience and not simply expressing an opinion. It is a fact that standards are very low and have nosedived hugely with PCs and the Internet when compared to what the were.
were with mainframes.
unreliable that systems have become.
You need to read the Documentation instead of making assumptions . . . for example:
increment a variable https://docs.mql4.com/basis/operations/math
how to use if https://docs.mql4.com/basis/operators/if
Compund operator (block) https://docs.mql4.com/basis/operators/compound
You obviously have different views to me on MQL$ at this time. And you ask me numerous throwaway questions as if I were an idiot of sorts.
Well, I am going to answer your questions, even though they are proabably rhetorical and designed to make me feel stuupid next to you obvious genius.
Firstly - Of COURSE MQL4 IS A COMPLEX AND TECHNICAL SUBJECT!!! This is a fact that a blind person could see! I simply do not agree with you on this. Even as an intelligent person I can see this - it does not make me stupid.
I feel that things are simple or complex according to the experience of the person using them. For example, instructions on how to put two batteries in a torch so that it works woulld be relativly simple for me,
whereas instructions on MQL4 programming language is relatively complex for me. Besides, I feel that those who say that MQL4 is easy and simple are trying to appear clever; it simply is not so.
Anything is easy and simple once you have spent time getting to know it well! A person learning to play the piano would find it dificult for a while but easy after many years of practice.
About the book and various tutorials on the subject - I need and expect exactly what I have always done and what I would deliver if I was in a position to undertake such a task.
When writing about a complex and technical subject - or when doing any other task - do it as well as you possibly can.
If I knew MQL4 well enough to write a tutorial on it (which I do not) - I would spend time analyzing and organizing MQL4 and my tutorial into comprehensive, logical and sequentially (as is possible due to the large amount of inter-dependence between its various parts) organized, flowing and understandable parts or sections that a reader could far more easily use as a logical reference. There order and flow would be aimed at making it far more easily usable as a reference to my readers. This may take me twice as long to complete as the present bunch of tutorials, but as a result the readers and users thereof would not be as baffled and spend half as much time searching through it for answers as they do with the present bunch of chaotic tutorials wherein the authors have attenpted to write something as easily understood and usable as possible, but have actually failed dismally. This is my considered opinion compared to what I have seen and have used before that is also quite complex and detailed but with which the learning text is organized, thought out and laid out well so as to make the task easier than it could be otherwise.
When I say that something is easy for me, I say this knowing full well that this is probably not so for those who are just starting off with it. I know that it has BECOME easy for me due to time spent and with practice. And this is something which others may not have done yet to a similar extent as me. So when somebody says MQL4 is easy (#&@!) - why the hell do they not realise that this same syndrome exists? My guess is so that they look smart - which is actaully not very smart at all.
AS a moderator on this forum, your job is to ensure that standards are adhered to so that it runs and workd smoothly for the users thereof. This job does not include talking down to somebody else. Instructing them - yes. Beliitling them - no.
It is nice to be important - we all like this - but it is important to be nice. Didn't your mummy tell you this?
I come here for several reasons that basically all are beneficial to me as a user and perhaps also to others who interact with me.
I do not come here with the purpose of insulting others. But I do always have a right to experess my opinion, just as you or anybody else does.
If in expressing our opinion on something, some other(s) take offence, then that is OK; it is simply a normal part of life. We do not all see all things in exactly the same way.
If I insulted you in any way, please accept my apologies.
I always strive to speak the truth as I see it and above all, to be truthful with myself; sometimes that means that I disagree with others.
If I disagree with another person, let us say you for example, then I feel strongly that it is far better to voice this than to remain silent. But - this means that I disagree about something specific,
and not at all that I dismiss you as a person.
I felt that your question of 'is this a joke' was not appropriate at all. If you had said that you do not agree with me at all on this, I would have seen this is perfectly acceptable simply because this can and does happen.