dll and market. - page 6

New comment
 
TheXpert:

Your logic is flawed, mate. If you use solutions like that, you're not thinking straight.

You're very cruelly mistaken ) resonant user is for example hrenfx, and this ... is just a world resentful nerd.

Well... he said three words there and got a page of posts with consonants and dissenters. And I'm there in the English-speaking a few threads with my content + indicators + EAs that are nowhere else, etc ... I do not want to go on and on ...

People simply have talent, but they do not use it for its intended purpose. I call such people "resonant".

 
sergeev:

Let me clarify a bit, if you weren't quite sure what I was talking about.

I'm not talking about the dll, I'm talking about the lack of capability in the current implementation of pipelines to become a server.
Without server pipes, you have to exchange information via files.
And not even via MemoryMapping, but via sandbox.
this is exactly what i said: "within MQL [information exchange] is solved by wiping a hole on the disk. This solution cannot be used in your right mind".

So again, I'm not talking about the lack of dll, but about the inability not to make holes in the hard drive. You can use such a solution, but it is a bad one.

To sum it up. Let's discuss THIS question.
 
sergeev:

:)

The task is to exchange information between agents of the local machine.

In the framework of MQL it is solved by wiping a hole on the hard disk.

This solution should not be used in your right mind.

No, it's not a task, it's a task to write simple, understandable for most users solutions. This is the sixth page of discussion, and I still don't understand what the point of the product is. Is it an exchange of information with yourself for the sake of exchanging information? Things like engineer2engineer are products with zero commercial potential. You don't pay money for getting into the nitty-gritty of file mapping and data exchange, you pay money for the realisation of your expectations, tasks, here and now, without training, preparation or work. Therefore, if the product you are creating is complex and cannot be explained in the time it takes to burn a match, you should not even try to implement it for commercial use.
 
C-4:
Page six of the discussion, and I still don't understand what the product itself is about.
As far as I understand it, it's some kind of genetic auto-optimisation.
 
TheXpert:
As far as I understand -- something like genetic auto-optimisation.

C-4 just don't want to read the thread, the author's answer is in the thread, on page 3.

 
Urain:

C-4 just don't have the heart to read the thread, the author's answer is in the thread, on page 3.

The O.C. seems like a good idea in terms of access to computing resources, but the owl itself has to be profitable. I.e. they will not buy for computing performance, but for the result, and these are somewhat different things.
 
C-4:
O.C. seems like a good idea in terms of access to computing resources, but the owls themselves need to be profitable. In other words, they will not buy for computing performance, but for results, and these are somewhat different things.

Performance in this case is a secondary element. The essence is the ability to manage the optimization process.

And the market is not only full of owls.

 
joo:

Performance is a secondary element in this case. The point is to be able to manage the optimisation process.

And the market is not just full of owls.

I take it that this is a hint at some kind of product, m-m-m-mm... like an optimization manager or something, capable of using the optimizer in real time.
 
C-4:
I take it this is a hint at some sort of product, m-m-m-mm... like an optimization manager or something, capable of using the optimizer in real time.
If given the option to run the optimizer from the owl, then also real-time on demand.
 
Renat, it is very interesting to know your opinion on the subject at hand.
1234567
New comment
Reason: