These types of statements have the implication of scaring the masses. You'll have to explain more ... unless your intend is just scaring people.
Buy Mql4-Script-Vendor, I'm guessing you're referring to someone who sells MT4 software from their own shop and it includes a .DLL. ?
If someone is allowing a .DLL from a 3rd-Party Developer, they have allot more to worry about then Stealth-Updates.
If you know a way of doing this within mql4, please let us know, we'll inform the Service-Desk.
If your response is ... this isn't my responsibility blah..blah..blah. Then why bring it up in the first place? Wass-up with the scare-tactics?
It is not about scaring people, I really intended to update my software remotely to give advantage to users to have the last update. But I finally did not include that, because I felt it would be unethical. Nothing against updates, but the user must learn why and control when and if.
ubzen:
Please by all means ... use the other dozens of programming environments. If I had a problem with a business model, I do-not keep using the same product ... that's how consumers make their voices heard.
Sorry if it takes more days to decide whether I want to work on with this or not. I think I need some time to decide if I can trust
my money and/or programming jobs on MT4. The business model would be OK if done properly. It seems it needs to be lucky
in the future to survive these updates with unforeseen behaviour. I "only" want that a properly tested, documented, announced
update would be released into live use (... just like the way the professionals do). Nows only 4-5 days later we have version 604.
However, should a .DLL not developed by MQ cause some harm
Users should-not rant about how MQ is negligent.
I don't see how MQ gets blamed for stealth_updates through .Dll
Who are these people who are blaming MQ for stealth updates of third-party products via DLLs? Where are the posts about it on this forum?
This forum is full of people blaming MQ for a forced but non-stealth update of their own product, and investigating the issues. To use another phrase of your own, you seem to be going "off topic"
ubzen:
When you just said the Dll can do anything ... that's my point.
My point was that your post was materially inaccurate: you said DLLs but you meant "Allow DLL imports". This kind of inaccuracy - presumably deliberate - seems to be what you yourself call "scare tactics"
hello, i have a precedence question.
for old mt4 code:
x = bool1 && bool2 && bool3 && bool4 || bool5; //old mt4 code
what was the precedence rule for old mt4?
Here: https://docs.mql4.com/basis/operations/rules
Learn to search ... You're off topic.
It is not about scaring people, I really intended to update my software remotely to give advantage to users to have the last update. But I finally did not include that, because I felt it would be unethical. Nothing against updates, but the user must learn why and control when and if.
Please by all means ... use the other dozens of programming environments. If I had a problem with a business model, I do-not keep using the same product ... that's how consumers make their voices heard.
Sorry if it takes more days to decide whether I want to work on with this or not. I think I need some time to decide if I can trust
my money and/or programming jobs on MT4. The business model would be OK if done properly. It seems it needs to be lucky
in the future to survive these updates with unforeseen behaviour. I "only" want that a properly tested, documented, announced
update would be released into live use (... just like the way the professionals do). Nows only 4-5 days later we have version 604.
Who are these people who are blaming MQ for stealth updates of third-party products via DLLs? Where are the posts about it on this forum?
This forum is full of people blaming MQ for a forced but non-stealth update of their own product, and investigating the issues. To use another phrase of your own, you seem to be going "off topic"
My point was that your post was materially inaccurate: you said DLLs but you meant "Allow DLL imports". This kind of inaccuracy - presumably deliberate - seems to be what you yourself call "scare tactics"
On now on to something more useful, in the form of helping somebody out...
meanwhile, while testing some EA code, i'm comparing tester results of b.509 and b.600.
b.600 tester has some heavy problems. M1, M5, M15 etc.. micmatched chart errors, i can not reduce them.
causing, prove of "working code" verification is impossible..
Sorry if it takes more days to decide whether I want to work on with this or not. I think I need some time to decide if I can trust
my money and/or programming jobs on MT4. The business model would be OK if done properly. It seems it needs to be lucky
in the future to survive these updates with unforeseen behaviour. I "only" want that a properly tested, documented, announced
update would be released into live use (... just like the way the professionals do). Nows only 4-5 days later we have version 604.
Here: https://docs.mql4.com/basis/operations/rules
Learn to search ... You're off topic.
how you did know, which document is old and which document is new?
did you see any document, comparing old and new precedence rules?
are you running real money with your code?
not polite answer..