Problem with EA validation on the Market - page 13

New comment
 
Vadim Zotov:

I am not complaining. I corrected those mistakes long ago and successfully. I did not intervene in this conversation to draw attention to myself. I am capable of correcting my own mistakes, and I don't think it is anything to be ashamed of. Everyone makes mistakes, including you.

I only intervened because I think you owe Ivan Titov an apology for being rude. Everyone was a novice at one time or another. They need help, not humiliation.

But not all novices and inexperienced ones tried to publish their creations for money. To help, you are welcome. But if written for money, then the help should be for money too. Am I wrong?

 
Alexey Viktorov:

But not all beginners and inexperienced tried to publish their creations for money. To help - you're welcome. But if written for money, then the help should be for money too. Am I wrong?

You are wrong. Money is not the main thing here. Everyone goes the way of the beginner. Tell him where he is wrong, point him in the right direction. But to humiliate him by killing his desire to live and work is wrong.

At this service, we are all in one bond - the administration and product developers. Figuring out which of us is more important - all the more so to trample each other. We all work for the same cause. We only need to help each other. Only then will we succeed together.

Perhaps my sense of mutual aid is too heightened. But I can't do otherwise.

Politics removed by the moderator Artyom Trishkin

 
Vadim Zotov:

You are wrong. Money is not the main thing here. Everyone goes the way of the beginner. Tell him where he is wrong, point him in the right direction. But to humiliate him by killing his desire to live and work is wrong.

At this service, we are all in one bond - the administration and product developers. Figuring out which of us is more important - all the more so to trample each other. We all work for the same cause. We only need to help each other. Only then will we succeed together.

Maybe my sense of mutual aid is too heightened. But I can't do otherwise.

There's a certain level where you can start writing on demand, publishing codes in the codebase, putting products on the market.

It's like climbing one step up from the previous one. In this case, the author decided to go straight to the market.

You see, the market is not a dump, products cost money there and the whole world uses the market. In order to publish something to generate income, you must first learn how to create programs without errors. Rashid was right to send you to learn.

P.S. If the author cannot correct a simple mistake on his own, the Market is out of the question because you still have to maintain the product and not just publish it for one time. All in all, you still need to learn.
 
Rashid Umarov:

1. Just study the article and 99% of mistakes can be avoided. It describes the standard requirements for reliable code for Market. So there's nothing to complain about here: you want to sell in Market, you have to foresee abnormal situations. The moderator is not obliged to advise you, you have to go through the checks yourself.

It is enough to read one article, after reading which there will be practically no errors in the program? That's ridiculous.

It is a matter of providing the developer with the steps to reproduce the bug when it is found. We provide such steps to Service Desk, but the company doesn't do that on its part.

2. That's right - in any complex project errors are inevitable and not so easy to detect. If you want to help the developer, you can provide all the details to reproduce the error. This will help to quickly identify the cause and correct the misbehaviour. We have hundreds of manual and automated tests before each build, but it is impossible to foresee everything.

Here. You develop complex products, while everyone else develops simple ones. It is disrespectful to others.

 
Alexey Viktorov:

Help is welcome. But if it's written for money, then the help should be for money too. Am I wrong?


Is this an extortionate bribe for publishing a product? Is that the reason for the red tape?

 
Ivan Titov:

Is this an extortionate bribe for publishing a product? Is that the reason for the red tape?

There is no question of bribes. But explaining it to everyone individually is too much. There's an article with examples, that's where they send everyone who has a problem. All the other problems, like I can't get an error, indicate that the tester is far from being called an 'idiot'. An EA must be prepared for an idiot and the test is run with incredible parameters to avoid unnecessary problems. It is in the idiot-proof mode that the Expert Advisor has to work.

The article describes the minimum possible idiocy, and in time it may add more. And problems will start happening again. But, unfortunately, this is the world we live in.


And there is an addendum.

A compiled product is sent to the market. Correspondingly, what can we say about it without seeing the code?
 
Ihor Herasko:

All it takes to write a program is one article, after reading which there are virtually no errors in the program? Well, that's ridiculous.

We are talking about providing the developer with steps to reproduce the bug when it is found in the product. We provide such steps to servicedesk, but the company doesn't do that on its part.

Here. You develop complex products, while everyone else develops simple ones. It is disrespectful to others.

They don't want to respect product developers, so fewer products will be on the market. There will be less income for the company, administrators and moderators. Maybe then there will be an understanding of this fundamental error. I think we have already chewed up enough of this error here and helped the administration to realise it.

 
Vadim Zotov:

If they don't want to respect the developers of the products, there will be fewer products on the market. There will be less income for the company, administrators and moderators. Maybe then an understanding of this fundamental error will come about. I think we have already chewed up enough of this error here and helped the administration to realise it.


This is not the only marketplace that is rich on this site.

 
Some incomprehensible nonsense sometimes goes on. I never thought that bureaucracy would settle here, among programmers. Although it all comes from long-bearded old men sitting in one place for a long time. But that's not the point! I have made an Expert Advisor with two trades (especially) in order to understand the point of this validation and to further insert these codes into standard Expert Advisors and look what's what! But what's going on here?! I have the impression that I'm not selling my trading robot. Why should I think how my robot will work in the Strategy Tester?! I literally don't give a shit where and when and on what, and on what basis, it will work for him, and with what bread, salt, he will run it. I have no intention of counting his money. I don't need it. And that's where it becomes an issue, in the content of the face of the marketplace. All right. So they take good care of their customers. Good. And who will take care of us?! If we don't exist, we don't need the market. Two warrants and 300 lines of scrutiny. You can copy and paste the entire MQL4 manual into the code and you won't make a mistake. You'll still get errors, because the logic is not clear. What's the point of all this?! Aren't I selling something I don't own?! If they set such a test, then let them buy it themselves. For example: I have created a trading robot (let's say) that trades on EUR/USD, OK, I've registered it and indicated it in the product comments. If someone has bought and run it on GBP/USD, then it's his problem, it's been specified in the manual of the robot that the currency pair is EUR/USD, and all his magic words after the purchase, about the robot itself, that it supposedly does not trade - an empty shell. And for that sound, you can sue him and the court will be on your side 100%. And here, there's some consternation, and not understandable consternation, and we're joined to it; a nest of consternation. It's not at all clear what this is all about! There is an ancient proverb and a Jewish one, or to be more precise, a Mesopotamian one - do not step over the ancient boundary. And they drive a tank into my vegetable garden and roll all the haulm. And that's not order. All right. There are certain rules, a bunch of programmers out there, let them make a billet file already with these checks and that's it. Maybe making tea in the morning is a lot harder! Although here's the thing: I used to agonise and now you agonise. And then they go to church, mosque, synagogue and repent of sins, but they do not even think about it. So it is better to be an atheist - you won't miss, you will always be on the horse. In principle, I don't write off and this point helps me in my studies and advances my mind.
 
Personally, when I read, I don't understand the logic of the writer very well, I don't always get the gist of it. That is, I do not concentrate, and usually learn more about the writer himself. But do I need to know it! I don't. So I try not to read. And sometimes the logic of the writer is so convoluted that in the time it takes to understand what's what, you forget what you wanted to do. It is a complete tragedy. And if in fact, there is nothing written there - only inoperative formalities. Or we should look at the order of executing events in the Expert Advisor, these clears and so on. In general, the order of writing the code. Actually if there is an order, it will work without any checks. Otherwise, I have a dump hole - everything is in a pile. I'm going to eliminate everything by elimination. My vegetable garden - I'll dig.
1...67891011121314151617181920
New comment