Ambitious ideas !!! - page 6

New comment
 
TheXpert:

You think in amoeba categories :) .

"We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: premature optimization is the root of all evil. Yet we should not pass up our opportunities in that critical 3%".

This is the fourth time I' ve been quoted on this forum.

It does not take much intelligence to quote and copy, even a monkey can try to learn it. :)

But to explain your thought consciously - it's more difficult and is already claiming the level of homo sapiens.

So, do you want to try to make sense of it or are you still not at that level? :)

 
HIDDEN:

For a couple of years now I've been periodically tormented by the idea of implementing a multi-currency strategy tester.

I've seen several implementations, read ideas, and even looked at MT5.

I mean, why do I need it if there is an MT5 where multicurrency is already implemented in the terminal?

Writing a bug-free in-house multi-currency strategy tester is a very complex task that is rarely completed.

I recommend to try again MetaTrader 5 in 64 bit version:

It is better to use a tool that has been tried and tested many times and is actively developed and supported by developers.
 
Andrei01:

Code optimization requires a minimum understanding of how resource-intensive a code fragment will be in terms of performed elementary operations (addition, multiplication, memory access, address calculation, etc.). Without this, no optimization is possible in principle, and even the best compiler will be powerless against this poor programmer. It seems an obvious thing, but I see that this may be big news for many programmers, too. :)



I can't afford to, but I'd really like to express myself firmly in your direction, but okay, let's assume that your example of ineptitude and stubbornness will clarify things for many people

You are hung up on the imaginary efficiency of your simple addressing, the examples I gave and the basics of writing efficient code - you are unable to read and understand, let's go from the 2x2 area:

there is a task, but a tricky task )) - the trick is vital - the customer as always asks for a minimum code, which in the process of work acquires versatility - the numbers in the list below

1. write a function to multiply 2-dimensional matrices

2. write a function for multiplication of 3-dimensional matrices

3. and can you write a universal function - X * Y?

4. can you find an inverse matrix?

- an ordinary programmer writes a function that multiplies the array X[2] [2] * Y[2][2].

- with your "logic" - write an amazingly fast code that will consist of an array X[4] and Y[4] and a function to multiply X[4] * Y[4] and be sure to use a function to convert stupid input/output data as a two-dimensional array into the correct data - a one-dimensional array, and study matrix algebra and write equivalent transformations for one-dimensional matrices

- The first programmer begins to add universality to his/her function; I can't even imagine what you will do (it will be very hard to check multiplication of twenty-dimensional matrices converted into one-dimensional array with a pencil); and finally a programmer with OOP appears and defines the base class - matrix and draws up the method of matrix multiplication;

- I do not even want to imagine what you will do with the fourth task, because this "crafty customer with bright new ideas" may appear on the horizon - a programmer with OOP just adds a method of finding the inverse matrix; besides, he adds all matrix operations and distributes them among other programmers, so that not to feel concerned later

If you manage to realize what a code with usual programming, with OOP, and with your "bright ideas" (your code will avalanche-increase in size from the second task and efficiency is out of the question) will realize what efficient programming is, and, yes, I forgot - the errors of working with matrices need also control - you still have to work a little ))))))))))))))).

What you are trying to argue with has already been experienced by programmers all over the world, believe me, no Bill Gates can make you program in OOP if it is not effective, it all depends on the prospects of the project - if the project will expand - without OOP will be a waste of time and will be written vast code without flexibility and versatility

 
Andrei01:

Well you have to confuse and mix into a rattlesnake mix different things. :)

One is a source of information which is objective and the other is a receiver which is subjective because it is not always able to perceive all the information, but only part of it.

nothing of the kind. Information only makes sense in application to a particular source and receiver. There cannot be any "absolute" information for us, because having touched or measured it, we immediately become a subjective receiver. It follows that it is fundamentally impossible to prove or disprove the existence of objective information in any source - it is like arguing about the presence/absence of God.

And the very notion of information, generally speaking, arises only when both source and receiver are chosen.

 
alsu:

nothing of the sort. Information only makes sense when applied to a specific source and receiver. There can be no "absolute" information for us, because having touched or measured it, we immediately become a subjective receiver.

Of course there is always a source of information. There is no other way to look at information.

Information without a source simply cannot exist. :) Well, if there is an objective source of information, the information from it will be objective in itself. The receiver of information will always be subjective, but it can approach objectivity with infinite accuracy if it perceives all information without distortion.

 
IgorM:

- With your "logic", you simply write an incredibly fast code with array X[4] and Y[4] and a function to multiply X[4] * Y[4] and surely a function to convert a stupid input/output data in a two-dimensional array into a valid one-dimensional data and study matrix algebra and write equivalent transformations for one-dimensional matrices.

Unfortunately, you didn't understand the simple thing, which I tried to bring to your understanding, but I see it is useless because if a plumber (for example) suddenly decided to temporarily re-train as a programmer, he still remained a plumber and thinks like a plumber, whose main thing is the length of pipes laid on the ground. :)

The criterion of program optimality is not the code length, but the number of operations for a particular task. If you are required to multiply only a two-dimensional matrix, while you implement much more general and unnecessary cases, it goes without saying that nobody will thank you for such amateurishness.

 
Andrei01: The receiver of the information will always be subjective, but can approach objectivity with infinite accuracy if it perceives all the information without distortion.

The subjectivity of the receiver is not that it inaccurately receives what comes from the source, but that this incoming stream to it can be interpreted in different ways. The same stream of bits can be completely different information, you see?

Andrei01, sorry, but I don't understand why you are writing something here. Is it for robo-rating or something? Your posts are perceived as some kind of flubbish noise that does not contain any useful signal for this thread. Please filter the outgoing flow: people read, not robots...

 
Mathemat:

1. The subjectivity of the receiver is not that it inaccurately receives what comes from the source, but that this incoming stream to it can be interpreted in different ways. The same bit stream can be completely different information, you see?

Andrei01, sorry, but I don't understand what you are writing something here for. Is it for robot-rating or what? Your posts are perceived as some kind of flubbish noise with no useful signal for this thread. Please filter the outgoing flow - people are reading, not robots...

1. The fact that the receiver interprets the information differently, depending on whatever his reasons are, is just an indication that it is subjective.

2. Mathemat, unfortunately I failed to grasp the meaning of this phrase. You put too much excessive noise in it. :) By the way, it is an example of the fact that the source of information can also flood, that is, deliberately generate deliberately meaningless information. :)

 
Andrei01:

Unfortunately, you haven't understood the simple thing, which I tried to bring to your understanding, but I see it is useless, because if a plumber (for example) decided to temporarily re-train as a programmer, he still remains a plumber and thinks like a plumber, whose main thing is the length of pipes laid on the ground. :)

The criterion of program optimality is not the code length, but the number of operations for a particular task. If you are required to multiply only a two-dimensional matrix, and you will implement much more general and unnecessary cases, it goes without saying that no one will thank you for such amateurism.


Unfortunately, you think only in terms of "quick and straightforward problem solving" and you do not think about future changes in the program algorithm

These are highly specialized tasks that are either solved in 20-30 minutes due to their ease of implementation, or these tasks have already been implemented in larger projects.

C-4 has already said that trading algorithms based on MACD are becoming a thing of the past, I will not repeat it

SZY: Study at least some developments in code optimization, if this is a sore point for you, here's the stuff people have worked out: http: //www.realcoding.net/article/rubric/code_optim?page=6

I say goodbye once again in this thread, I see no need to repeat myself, who wants to understand what OOP and efficient programming is, I think he will understand or google it himself?

 
Andrei01: 1. The fact that the receiver interprets the information differently, depending on any of his reasons, just shows that he is subjective.

Wrong again. Interpretation of the incoming stream is the task of the one who stands above the receiver and sets the conditions of the Game. The receiver is iron; it grinds the information according to the algorithm set for it by the Game Master. In this sense it is completely and strictly objective, because it is a dumb iron. But subjective is the Master.

Did you know that information can be interpreted differently, depending on the context of the task at hand?

123456789
New comment
Reason: