Discussion of article "Graphical interfaces X: Advanced management of lists and tables. Code optimization (build 7)" - page 2
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
1. If I haven't implemented something yet, it doesn't mean that I haven't thought about it already and don't know how I will implement it. I just haven't done it yet. Unlike you, I describe everything I do in detail. It also takes time.
2. I don't have to read articles to implement something. If there is no ready-made solution, I look for my own methods. But you have the opportunity to read articles. And instead of reading and not asking questions that are explained in the article, you continue to "bullet" at random.
3. It's different with OOP. You simply have an absolute gap in this area of knowledge. What you have "the hardest process" is solved quite simply with OOP.
4. I am not typical of being offended. I remember that one of the members of the English forum suggested a solution (without implementation) how to improve the scheme. I used it. The hardest process did not arise. With your approach you will torture yourself for a long time bragging about poor implementation and fighting with windmills.
1. I will be glad to read how you see the implementation of the idea of "interface on one bitmap": By the way, don't forget to explain in that article how indicator lines or any other graphical objects from other programs will not be obscured by the whole bitmap interface.
2. Does this particular article say anything about universalisation of functions? Does it say anything about expanding the development potential of the programme? About the inevitable necessity of global redesigns for a qualitative leap forward? However, you can see from my questions that this is what I am interested in. I am interested in seeing the limits of the potential of this approach. I know that they exist and, in my opinion, it is impossible to overcome them without a global redesign. This is the thought I am trying to convey.
3. Here your judgement is unfounded. I may not know OOP well, but you know my approach even worse, and therefore you cannot say for sure how hard it is for me. Without having the concept, you also cannot know how hard it will be for you.
4. You're right. Bragging about a shoddy implementation is silly. However, if it's an innovative shoddy implementation - then it's acceptable).
I liked your metaphor of "fighting windmills". There's something to that... But this is not just about you, but rather about my conflict with common programming methods, in which I am trying to assert myself. It's nothing personal.
I want to end our discussion on a positive note.
Happy New Year! :)
... That's the message I'm trying to convey.
You're not very good at it. You're all about telling us about your implementation and your approach. In closed code. It's always revolving around that. Don't you get tired of it? You're repeating yourself. You're always stepping on the same rake.
It is obvious that you are not inclined to discuss questions about the possibility of existence of other approaches. Perhaps the standard approach suits you just fine. All I'm saying is that there are other ways. And the rake here is unwillingness of some people to understand it.
It is true about closed code. But nobody showed me the code either. And nobody told me how to come to my approach. A real developer can come to everything himself.
It is obvious that you are not inclined to discuss the possibility of other approaches. Perhaps the standard approach suits you just fine. All I'm saying is "there are other ways". And the rake here is the unwillingness of some people to understand it.
What does your closed code have to do with it? What standard approach are you talking about? Where did you get this standard from?
And why do you always start talking about other ways when I have already made it clear that I am not interested in your approach in this way? Why do you impose it?
About the closed code - it's true. But nobody showed me the code either. Or told me how to come to my approach. A real developer can come to everything by himself.
So get there first. Your implementation is so raw that nobody can use it because it has not been published yet. The fact that you are about to publish it you have been repeating incessantly since May. Will you stop this incessant flaming?
What does your closed code have to do with it? What standard approach are you talking about? Where did you get this standard from?
And why do you always start talking about other ways if I have already made it clear that I am not interested in your approach in this way? Why do you impose it?
Well, then get there first. Your implementation is so raw that nobody can use it, because it has not been published yet. The fact that you are about to publish it you have been repeating incessantly since May. Will you stop this incessant flaming?
Where am I imposing? I'm asking tough questions about the future development of the library. I just look at what you do a little more globally. And the questions are a little more global. Is that a bad thing?
What good will it do if I just dig into specific details of your implementation and that's all? What would it do? If I had nothing to compare with, I would only listen to what you write, but I have something to compare with. In many respects, I am on a par with you (though in some things I lag behind), but aren't you interested in communicating with equals (even if they have a different approach)? After all, it is very interesting. That's all.
Where am I imposing? I'm asking tough questions about the future development of the library. I just take a slightly more global view of what you are doing. And the questions are a little more global. Is that a bad thing?
What good will it do if I just dig into specific details of your implementation and that's all? What would it do? If I had nothing to compare with, I would only listen to what you write, but I have something to compare with. In many respects, I am on a par with you (though in some things I lag behind), but aren't you interested in communicating with equals (even if they have a different approach)? After all, it is very interesting. That's all.
So far I have not seen anything from you that interests me and raises questions. I see only global incompetence. First study it, and then compare it. But you have recently admitted that you make comparisons based on pictures in the articles of this series. Therefore, I am ending the discussion with you.
I have not yet seen anything from you that interests me and raises questions. All I see is global incompetence. Study first, and then compare. But you have recently admitted that you make comparisons based on pictures in the articles of this series. So I am ending the discussion with you.
That's right. I judge by pictures, videos or even better - by exe files. I consider it the main indicator. What I see from you, as I have already emphasised many times, makes a very positive impression on me and I give a high mark to your result. By the way, I have always said that.
I give a low mark to the approach as such, but this is my subjective assessment, which is justified by my practice of creating the same thing that you do.
By the way, if you consider me incompetent in MQL interface creation, I suggest that after the New Year we open a special thread where we will discuss your and my solutions. Then you will be able to prove the statement about my incompetence.
Frankly speaking, I hope you will agree. )
...
Honestly, I really hope you agree. )
I have already answered you unequivocally on it in our personal correspondence. Your solutions in the current form of presentation are not interesting to me and I do not want to waste my time on it. I have a big list of tasks that I have yet to do. That's what I'm going to do.
I have explained my solutions in detail in a series of articles about graphical interfaces. I have no desire to chew it all up for you personally. Everyone who is really interested in it, read the articles and use my version in their own developments. If something is not clear, they ask specific questions.
Publish and sort out your solutions on your own. It is not for me to prove your incompetence, but for you to prove your competence by your own actions and statements. That is what you should do next year.
In the meantime, happy holidays and goodbye. :)
I have already answered you unequivocally in our personal correspondence. I am not interested in your solutions in the current form of presentation and I do not want to waste my time on it. I have a long list of tasks that I have yet to do. That's what I'm going to do.
I have explained my solutions in detail in a series of articles about graphical interfaces. I have no desire to chew it all up for you personally. Everyone who is really interested in it, read the articles and use my version in their own developments. If something is not clear, they ask specific questions.
Publish and sort out your solutions on your own. It is not for me to prove your incompetence, but for you to prove your competence by your own actions and statements. That is what you should do next year.
In the meantime, happy holidays and goodbye. :)
Thanks for the congratulations. )
I think a discussion like this would be of interest to many. A lot of people could participate.
And your library will continue to be used in any case and it will remain relevant and in demand for a long time.
However, there may be a serious alternative. Perhaps a serious alternative is brewing.
Whether it will happen, when it will happen, whether we will be ready for it, who is ahead of us, how realistic it is to create a visual studio by this or that approach - we could understand with you from this discussion.
No one would have been belittling or belittling anyone. We would just objectively understand approaches, views and problems of realising the most difficult tasks in creating a graphic interface.
Such a discussion could intellectually enrich us all. This would be the benefit of such a branch.
And a Happy New Year to you again. )