When does it make sense to keep part of the robot code in an indicator? - page 3
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
From my experience, I have the following arguments:
An all-in-one EA is faster than one with an indicator.
Proof?
"With indicator" has no advantage over "all in one".
Verbal nonsense. At least the advantage of logical division and the multiple reduction in the probability of error as each block is tested separately. That's just for show.
"All-in-one" is not tied to the nuances of the relationship with the indicators and peculiarities of their work.
What are the nuances? Everything is trivial.
Dependence on MT+MQL bugfixes (4 and 5) in "all in one" is much less.
Again it's groundless. You have to write it independently of bugfixes, that's all.
Changes regarding the operation of indicators do not affect the results of the "all in one". For example, changes in MT4 since builds > 380.
It's a bit far-fetched, but all right, it's a plus.
"All in one" does not imply a rigid interconnection of all internal units. "All in one" is also assembled from pieces, but bypassing the architectural rake of the platform.
... Adding a bunch of rakes when testing and assembling in the form of additional bugs and ambushes.
It is even more strange to hear it from the author of "not trivial indicators".
Waiting for an argument using, say, a simple zig-zag example.
This is purely my opinion:
1. Not always, but more often never
2. Indicators have their own advantages
3. A correct indicator speeds up the operation of the Expert Advisor many times over
4. Why rely on them?
5. The correct indicator worked without any problems, and it still works
P.S. Indicators are only needed for visualisation. That is, only for manual and semi-automatic trading. For full-fledged automated systems, indicators (aka visualization) are not needed by definition. I dare say this as the author of not trivial indicators.
IMHO - visualization is possible without the invention of indicators - everything could be realized within the framework of an Expert Advisor concept.
I can only suggest, for want of a better hypothesis, that the developers were inspired by the idea to disable launching several trading Expert Advisors in one window and invented indicators that can be launched simultaneously, but only in a secondary thread relative to the EA. Perhaps the realization of the parallelism of two or more Expert Advisors at that time was enough of a problem for them to take on additional indicator-related headache.
Attention, please... keep your eyes on the moderator... and what's with the smiles in the ranks while discussing a serious topic. )))
Please excuse me for being off-topic, but I'm new to the army, so when I read the first two words, I obeyed the command: Attention! More humbly! Eyes on...
hrenfx:. :-)))
P.S. I agree with his opinion on the matter. If possible, I bypass custom indicators for myself...- code directly in the owl, moreover I have a way of handling objects... At the same time, it's also possible to test each block separately by disabling the others, so with this - "Nonsense. At least the advantage of logical division and multiple reduction of error probability, as each block is tested separately. That's just for the fun of it." - I disagree.
Proof?
Vociferous nonsense.
I'm waiting for an argument based on an example of, say, a simple zig-zag.
You are nothing to me as I am to you. Proving that I am not a camel would be strange. Responded to the topicstarter's question with the phrase "purely my opinion".
If you have a different opinion from mine, no one is stopping you from giving it here with evidence and full argumentation. I have no desire to waste my time and energy on it.
P.S. There are bound to be comments like "Dick, as usual, got away with it as soon as it smelled hot" below. - I don't care.
1. Not always, but more often never
An indicator together with an EA will always be slower by definition because it works in a separate computational thread that actually works sequentially and therefore requires additional operations to reconcile and control the threads.
Strangely enough, it is faster. Test it yourself if necessary.
IMHO - visualization is possible without the invention of indicators - everything could be realized within the concept of Expert Advisor.
I can only suppose, for want of a better hypothesis, that the developers were motivated by the idea of prohibiting the launching of several trading Expert Advisors in one window and that was the only reason for inventing indicators that can be launched simultaneously, but only in a secondary thread relative to the EA. Perhaps the realization of the parallelism of two or more Expert Advisors at that time was enough of a problem for them to take on additional indicator-related headache.
It is an interesting stance in life to think that someone is motivated to create bans on something.
An indicator together with an EA will always be slower by definition because it works in a separate computational thread that actually works sequentially and therefore requires additional operations to reconcile and control the threads.
It's not so in MT5. It is precisely the parallelism of execution that additionally stimulates NOT to do everything in one.
So, this is just a foretaste. :)
An indicator together with an EA will always be slower by definition because it works in a separate computational thread that actually works sequentially and therefore requires additional operations to reconcile and control the threads.
Nonsense! We can compete. I will write the EMA indicator and call it from Expert Advisor, and you calculate the EMA in Expert Advisor. You may use SMA, not EMA. The EMA would look more effective.