OOP vs procedural programming - page 48
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 an OOP point of view - totally wrong approach. Your business is TC, not rewriting code that has already been created and works.
what about oop, we are talking about different languages and how to convert
it's not hard to make a study in python or something else, but these crutches do not work for stable operation and easy portability
that's why libraries are taken and rewritten to mql
What does OOP have to do with it?
OOP is not about classes and inheritance, it's a concept involving the direct use of any third-party programs and code without any conversions.
If you want to rewrite from one language to another, be my guest, it's your business. But it does not coincide with the concept of OOP. And this thread is about OOP, actually).
Use slow Python, do research and then transfer the results to a fast implementation inToday's reading, MQL5.
We've already done a lot to support mathematics in MQL5 and MetaTrader5: Statistical Distributions in MQL5 - Take the Best of R and Make it Faster
Just read it, it's a smart idea!
OOP is not about classes and inheritance, it is a concept that includes the direct use of any third-party programs and code without any conversions.
If you want to rewrite from one language to another, be my guest, that's your business. But it does not coincide with the concept of OOP. And this thread is about OOP, actually).
Yes, but not everyone understands it, though they use it ))
Just read it, clever thought!
I wonder how Renat intends (proposes) to port Python to MCL? As for complex algorithms (MO, for example), there are packages (modules) in Python, and not in Python at all. And Python, by itself, is of little interest to anyone at all.
it is not difficult to conduct research in python or elsewhere, but such crutches are not suitable for stable operation and easy portability
That's why they take libraries and rewrite them to mql.
I understand when you're rewriting from mql to plus - it's logical, but back - this is something unhealthy. What's the point anyway? Firstly, it's a significant loss of productivity (many times over). Secondly, it's a wasted a lot of time on coding and, most importantly, DELETE. You seem to forget that coding is only a small part of it. The main thing is to lick everything later, fixing bugs - and they will anyway, because there are many differences between languages, it's already mentioned here. And even if the resulting code compiles immediately, it does not mean that it works as in the original. And you're talking about "worked consistently"
I understand when you rewrite from mql to pluses - it's logical, but back - this is something unhealthy. What's the point anyway? Firstly, it is a significant loss of productivity (many times over). Secondly, it's a wasted a lot of time on coding and, most importantly, DELETE. You seem to forget that coding is only a small part of it. The main thing is to lick everything later, fixing bugs - and they will anyway, because there are many differences between languages, it's already mentioned here. And even if the resulting code compiles immediately, it does not mean that it works as in the original.
What's the purpose of this story?