Debugging the DLL? In MT4 and MT5 - page 9
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
Dear Academic,
In reality, you have tried to explain your reasons in a polite way, without getting to the clear wording that puts everything firmly in its place.
You are now trying to teach practitioners who have been developing the MQL language (first introduced in the MetaQuotes platform) since 2001. Over 9 years we have consistently developed MQL - MQL2 - MQL4 and MQL5 in public discussions on our forums. The level of development of programming languages for trading strategies is very deep and is based on our practical experience with a lot of mistakes made.
Against this background, you appear and, based on your own self/I/MNE, are beating about the tip of the iceberg, demanding explanations and not understanding the underlying mechanisms that affect the development of the system. The situation is a lot like a confident third grader demanding that the professor turn the world around for himself because he thinks that is the right thing to do. The cocky tone of "Professor, you can't even explain why the world isn't for me!" merely puts the finishing touches to the picture.
I have to explain in this way, for I am not going to lecture on how to build information and trading platforms, what is important in this, where the fatal failures are and where success is.
I am just a supporter of a clear formulation.
I am trying to give a point of view, which I think would be useful. There is, as you understand, my vested interest - I don't want to learn something there once I know your system.
I think we missed a point - why don't we protect MQL5 scripts? For example with a key that decrypts code?
Why not have two versions of the terminal - one with increased protection including prohibition of DLL debugging. And the other is less secure? A person wants to have a more secure environment, so he takes the more secure version.
For example, it would be possible to make the code from one could not be executed on the other. Although, I don't really know what this would achieve.
Surely it could be solved in your code at compile level? You could make it so that such a system could only work with the same protected server.
In a word, it would probably be possible to solve such a problem.
Gentlemen, I give advice and predictions only in what I know (by the way, as for the proceedings, the analogy suggests itself - the judge understands the crimes, although he does not commit them). I'm not going to count with anyone, in particular, who has been developing software for how many years, in what field and so on. It's very convenient to switch to personalities, getting away from the heart of the matter. The point is that public discussion of any project intended for mass use (commercial is not an exception) is only beneficial. The internet makes it possible, and software companies have their hands full there. It's already a good tone. And how can it be a failure if the software is implemented with the majority of users in mind? If we had figures that 1000 people voted for protection and 10 people voted against it, wouldn't the very subject of discussion on this or any other question disappear? Wouldn't the MetaQuotes themselves be better off? The most important thing is that there should be a willingness on the part of the developer to know the opinion of consumers, and a will to take it into account despite their own difficulties.
You need to understand the fact that this is not a democratic election, and not even a vote on the MAN OF THE YEAR. If even 2000 people will be for the debug and only one against it, everything will remain as it is.
I don't think you quite understand that this is not a vote on what to do, but a poll. Who needs what. And what to do was suggested to be decided by MQ. And for some reason you're arguing exactly what a vote isn't appropriate here. It is a poll.
I don't think you quite understand that this is not a vote on what to do, but a poll. Who needs what. And what to do was suggested to be decided by MQ. And for some reason you're arguing precisely that a vote is not appropriate here. It is a poll.
MQs have made their decision earlier, and they are unlikely to change it...
Yes it has been voiced. Nevertheless, it seems to me that reasonable arguments are all worth making. Everyone is a reasonable person.
We are all reasonable people.
No way!!! Can attempts to impose their own perceptions on developers with thick trolling be considered reasonable?
Reasonable arguments, mainly for the benefit of MQ is not trolling. It's an attempt to offer an analysis of users' opinions.
Gentlemen, advice and predictions I give only what I understand (by the way, concerning the proceedings, an analogy begs to be made - a judge understands the crimes, although he does not commit them). I'm not going to count with anyone, in particular, who has been developing software for how many years, in what field and so on. It's very convenient to switch to personalities, getting away from the heart of the matter. The point is that public discussion of any project intended for mass use (commercial is not an exception) is only beneficial. The internet makes it possible, and software companies have their hands full there. It's already a good tone. And how can it be a failure if the software is implemented with the majority of users in mind? If we had figures that 1000 people voted for protection and 10 people voted against it, wouldn't the very subject of discussion on this or any other question disappear? Wouldn't the MetaQuotes themselves be better off? The most important thing is that there should be a willingness on the part of the developer to seek consumer opinion and the will to consider it, despite their own difficulties.
1 Then, according to the laws of sociology, it is necessary to properly design a poll, to develop a sampling criterion, otherwise it will turn out that 1000 for, 10 against, and 10000 who are against did not vote simply because they have no time (we need sociologists to conduct a poll and process the results) who needs all this hassle anyway.
2 Progress is not driven by the masses, but by individuals. Before Kodak invented its service there already was colour photography, but it was studio. Kodak created a film developing and printing service, and as a result they started making point-and-shooters (super simple cameras) and photography migrated from studios to the masses. And this was not done at all at the request of the masses, in fact the masses at first could not understand why they needed it (to buy a camera if you can take a picture in any studio). And now go out in the street and you're likely to meet a person with a camera.
So the masses, not having all the information, are often wrong.
Reasonable arguments, mainly for the benefit of MQ is not trolling. It is an attempt to offer an analysis of user opinion.