Interesting topic for many: what's new in MetaTrader 4 and MQL4 - big changes on the way - page 17
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
If this is your principled position, then go with it to the end - remove all (even the workaround) possibilities of custom history in MT4. The custom history, according to you, is evil and nobody needs it. So why is this nasty thing in MT4? Improve MT4 to the fullest.
Relax, don't be so sensitive.
The market would be better then the traders, who have already developed an trading strategy. We agree to any whim without objection.
If this is your principled position, then go with it to the end - remove all (even the workaround) possibilities of custom history in MT4. The custom history, according to you, is evil and nobody needs it. So why is this nasty thing in MT4? Improve MT4 to the fullest.
What do you think, they won't? What about the market? After all, you can draw any picture in the strategy tester with custom history, and then sell it for $1,200.
A simple two-way process showed that Renat is contradicting himself. On the one hand he expresses his concern about traders as to protect them from custom history even in the form of opportunities, on the other hand such opportunities are specially preserved in MT4, i.e. there is no concern about traders.
At the same time it is said that in MT5 the custom history will raise a lot of questions, but it is acknowledged that in MT4 such questions are not raised.
Again, the reason is simple: the MT5 architecture would have to change too much. Or, more precisely, after such a change, the architecture will not be as nice and self-sufficient as it is now. Which is a severe blow to any experienced programmer. No experienced programmer wants to create a crutch in his product. Unfortunately, in this case we are talking about an architectural flaw, or rather lack of flexibility (versatility) in favor of algorithmic optimizations.
This has long been a classic confrontation: algorithmic optimization vs architectural universality.
Unfortunately, almost all platforms have absolutely no competent algotraders involved in the stages of laying down the architecture.
vs
Several dying trading platforms, brokers with their datafeeds, all sorts of Yahoo Fundamentals, Yahoo Intraday, Google Finance, Google Intraday, MSN Money Central and Forex, quotation vendors(for example let it be, it is not a broker or a competing trading platform, about which one cannot). They all (or their divisions) are left out, so it's only against them.
Well and 2.5 traders. 2 algo and clicker/2.
A simple two-way process showed that Renat is contradicting himself. On the one hand he expresses his concern about traders as to protect them from custom history even in the form of opportunities, on the other hand such opportunities are specially preserved in MT4, i.e. there is no concern about traders.
At the same time it is said that in MT5 the custom history will raise a lot of questions, but it is acknowledged that in MT4 such questions are not raised.
Again, the reason is simple: the MT5 architecture would have to change too much. Or, more precisely, after such a change, the architecture will not be as nice and self-sufficient as it is now. Which is a severe blow to any experienced programmer. No experienced programmer wants to create a crutch in his product. Unfortunately, in this case we are talking about an architectural flaw, or rather lack of flexibility (versatility) in favor of algorithmic optimizations.
This has long been a classic confrontation: algorithmic optimization vs architectural universality.
Unfortunately, almost all platforms are completely devoid of knowledgeable algotraders at the stages of laying down the architecture.
The difference in the architecture is that both the tester and MT5 make synchronization of history with the server (they are separate programs) before the start. MT4 built-in tester doesn't do this, but takes what is in hst.
If MT4 adopts the same way of loading history (namely, recalculation of all the TF from M1), then it would be logical to unify data loading schemes for both platforms, but it is not clear whether we should download the data again, because it is already available since MT4 has a built-in tester.
The difference in architecture here is that both the tester and MT5 itself does history synchronization with the server before the start (they are separate programs). MT4 built-in tester does not do this, but takes what is in hst.
If MT4 adopts the same way of loading history (namely, recalculation of all TFs from M1) then it would be logical to unify data loading schemes for both platforms, but it is not clear whether the data should be loaded again, because it already exists and is available since MT4 has a built-in tester.
The explanation is simple - many years ago, for several reasons (technical, resource and just not considered the future), we were weak and made a crutch for history uploading, which is a shame.
You have to understand that in 2004, when we made decisions about MetaTrader 4, we had a lot of Windows 98, wrecked computers and serious resource limitations. For MetaTrader 5 all the baggage of the old stuff was dumped and a good and extensible architecture was made.
If we decide to transfer MT4 to M1 history as in MT5, then of course, History Center and third-party history will be gone for sure. But it is not a question of the next build.
If we decide to move MT4 to M1 history as in MT5, of course History Center and third-party history will go away for sure. But it's not a matter of the next build.
Unique to the whole industry are the posts on this page. Two people experienced in the industry are, for almost the first time, publicly saying not very nice things to each other.
One of the authors is a monopolist, and really holds the industry in his hands quite tightly. It is difficult to dig in, as he has the power to shut down any of the majority of brokers, destroying their business. At the same time he will not be hurt himself, as there are plenty of clients.
It is bad when the abuse of monopoly begins to prevail over market relations. That is why, in particular, there is anti-monopoly legislation. Still, it is better to be adequately better than competitors. And the competitors (those who can actually create something useful) have started their activities relatively recently.
I am in favour of changing the industry. At the same time my hands are untied - there is no dependence on brokers. So there is no risk of criticism at times.
It would be great if there was a War in the industry. Revolutionaries must prevail or perish. The underground is not interesting.
You guys are fine, but you can't add a product in the marketplace, it says in red
File is already linked to the machineFileis a demo versionIncorrect version name format