Discussion of article "Visual strategy builder. Creating trading robots without programming" - page 4
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
In this particular case, I see nothing wrong with it. Since it is neither a robot nor a signal, but a means of production for non-programmers.
One thing is a commodity, and another thing is a machine for the production of goods and technology. Ordinary goods are subject to duties when imported into the country, while technologies are hunted for and the state itself is ready to pay for them.
There is hardly a behind-the-scenes agreement, as the promotion of this product is in the hands of MQ due to the promotion of the platform.
Moreover, it is true that serious and extensive work for the benefit of MQ should be rewarded.
But a precedent has been set :)))
There are no rules without exceptions, especially for those who make the rules. It would not be wise to go for the principle of "rules" to your own detriment.
I am sure that anyone who creates something worthwhile and technological for the common good has the right to expect similar loyalty from MQ. And rightly so.
You are very wise, Nicholas.))
I completely agree with you.)
There is nothing wrong in it, if the constructor conceived and implemented by MQ in the MQL wizard gets a new development, a new graphical life and is tested and brought to perfection in a paid product.
I am not saying that there is something bad in it, on the contrary, I am saying that it is useful to make reviews of people's achievements in the sphere of software development.
About MQ - I doubt that they will develop something further in a hurry, besides, this product as if says that there is no need in it, they say "we are with us".
Even if there is some "collusion", it would be more correct to call it an agreement. What crime?
I am not a prosecutor to look for conspiracies and conspiracies, no, I would just like everyone to understand by what criterion an article about their product will interest MQ or not.
I also hope to create some kind of interactive trend in this community of programmers. Personally, I have been talking about it for a long time. So far I see a big lag in this area.
Of course my vision is very different from this implementation, but still it is something.
I do not even want to discuss the usefulness and practicality of this product. The main thing is the trend.
I created a topic about solving the issue with the settings of Expert Advisors/indicators/scripts, so that it would be possible to add colours and other goodies for the convenience of work - unfortunately, there were almost no interested parties.
The free versions are fully usable, just less convenient than the full versions.
Yeah, you do it, you do it, and then bang, it's all wiped out, well, kind of a dubious pleasure.
Or did I misunderstand one of the limitations?
If you need the code, try to generate the code of the scheme of one of the templates and study it. Maybe you will find something useful. For example, the trade class is made as a static class and can be used separately from the rest of the code.
Why do I need generated code? It's interesting to understand how your interactivity works, how connections occur (templates are prepared) and then interpreted.
Could you please explain what you mean?
I mean that there is a very high density of icons, which are connected along and across between other icons, and as a result we have a web, which is not very convenient for perception.
The advantage of graphics should be, in my opinion, to improve the perception of information, and thus more convenient reading of the structure of the logic/code of the programme.
Placing elements in the form of classical flowcharts would be more convenient for reading, personally for me, and for this purpose there should be more space for work, that's why I suggested to think about scrolling to increase the space.
Yeah, you do it, you do it, and then bang, it's all wiped out, well, kind of a dubious pleasure.
Or did I misunderstand one of the restrictions?
Nothing is deleted during the process of creating a schematic. Schemas are deleted after a certain number of source code generations.
Why do I need generated code? It is interesting to understand how your interactivity works, how connections happen (patterns are prepared) and then interpreted.
This is exactly what can be understood from the generated code.
Placing elements in the form of classic flowcharts would be easier to read, personally for me, and for that there should be more space to work with, that's why I suggested to think about scrolling to increase the space.
Are we talking about zoom? Or about the size of the icons? The scroll is there. The density of icons depends only on the user's desire. You can have them less densely spaced.
Nothing is deleted during the schema generation process. Schemes are deleted after a certain number of source code generations.
This is exactly what can be understood from the generated code.
Is it about the zoom? Or about the size of the icons? Scroll is there. The density of icons depends only on the user's desire. They can be less dense.
Then I misunderstood the description.
Maybe you can, but not for everyone.
It's about space scrolling, I didn't see it on the screens, that's why I wrote it.
I must have misunderstood the description.
Maybe you can, but not for everyone.
It's about space scrolling, I didn't see it on the screens, that's why I wrote it.
If the topic will be interesting, you can write a more technical article about this part.
In brief: each element corresponds to a class - an object. Objects interact with each other by exchanging data (via pointers - links). All classes of these objects and links are visible in the generated code.
Scroll bars will appear automatically when you need them (when elements stop fitting). The size of the scheme can be changed by "dragging" its borders.
As a small criticism:
1. Need to work on scrolling. Something is not quite right with it. It either slows down sometimes, or just "comes off".
2. Windows have no buttons. Intuitively reach to close the window, but there is no cross).
3. did not immediately realise how to drag a window. You need to press once, then press and hold. Perhaps a simple move handle would be more convenient.
4. The windows are dynamic, but their ability to change sizes is not obvious. It's not clear where to grab to pull and resize the window. It would be nice if arrows appeared in place of the window handles.
5. When dragging the window, the upper handle (which we hold the window with) can go beyond the upper border of the chart, so if you let go of the window, you can't grab it again. It is also impossible to close the window. We need to make it impossible to raise the window above the top of the chart.
In principle, it is not critical. But still...
1. Got it. With scrolling, just like with the window drag handle. You have to press once and then again and hold. Then everything works.
5. If a window has gone out of scope, you need to use the main scroll bar. Then you can bring it back to the visibility area.