What is a tester's Grail? - page 16
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
Apparently, it is possible to get hooked on the OOP needle. The symptoms are extreme virtualization, escape from reality, replacement of reality with virtuality.
;)))
1. The inability to distinguish Masha the girl from Masha the accountant.
2. The impossibility to distinguish Pasha, who plays the girl Masha(with stockings and bow-ties) from the programmer Pasha (with glasses and a laptop).
almost complete abstraction and virtualization of reality.
With respect.
The word "delaying" somehow scares opponents of OOP )))) It's better to use the phrase "introduces a delay".
And now a killer question - what percentage of it? After all, no one tried to make tests and only on the forum yada yada yada for years in a row))
I can guess which one.
I take a new indicator. Some kind of tricky price-channel. It takes half an hour or an hour to make an indicator without any extra features.
If I use OOP-devices, it will take twice as much time to create this indicator, first, to provide universal virtual interface of my library, plus to create this indicator "according to accepted protocol formalities" in the data provider. Besides, much time had been spent to create the whole structure of virtual interfaces between data provider and Expert Advisor, as well as separate indicators and timeseries inside the data provider.
BUT.
After that - the data provider will provide export of the virtual interface of this indicator, as well as all other indicators that it "knows". As a result, changing one channel to another in the code is very easy - when requesting the data provider of the channel indicator - you simply specify the identifier of the new indicator in the request structure. After that, the Expert Advisor begins to work with this new channel without any problems.
In addition, in case of any errors or modifications, this work becomes much easier due to the formalized access. And most importantly, due to encapsulation, I'm working with a limited number of entities at any given moment, which greatly reduces the load on my memory.
So, the main brakes of OOP are just in development. And not in computer processing power at all.
To summarize: OOP requires additional resources during development and creation, but saves resources in use and maintenance. And since it's always harder for me to maintain than to write something new - I choose OOP, and so far I've never regretted it. (That said, I occasionally make something "by hand" - without any OOP-interfaces).
Apparently, it is possible to get hooked on the OOP needle. The symptoms are extreme virtualization, escape from reality, replacement of reality with virtuality.
;)))
Yeah, I guess so.
I agree to the title "lord of virtual interfaces".
This will depend on the person who likes to virtualize everything around. If there are solid classes, the latency will probably be higher, if only one function is virtual, the latency will be lower.
No. I have "solid classes". Moreover - all blocks, as I've already said more than once, interact via virtual interfaces, when real class - inherited from it, and real object is a descendant class, and everyone who needs it - gets a virtual parent interface. Working with structures, with simple variables, in my case, only at the level of individual functions. And even then, if the data is a little more complex than a simple string, I usually already use objects.
There is a known difference - it is a second chance
Closing a position + the main position gives us increased probability for profit if we have a good strategy for opening and for closing orders
When closing on a stop loss there is no chance, although sometimes this is the best
In general if you clearly distinguish a trend from a flat,locking may help you
No, the difference between closing at SL and reopening when the price goes back and locking and then opening a position is nothing at all.
I would also add
1. An inability to distinguish Masha the girl from Masha the accountant.
2. The impossibility to distinguish Masha the girl (with stockings and bow-ties) from the programmer Pasha (with glasses and a laptop).
1. If I want an accountant, I don't care about gender. If I want a girl, I don't care if she is an accountant or not.
2. If I don't really feel any difference, then there isn't one.
There is a known difference - it is a second chance
Closing a position + the main position gives us increased probability for profit if we have a good strategy for opening and for closing orders
When closing on a stop loss there is no chance, although sometimes this is the best
In general, if you clearly distinguish a trend from a flat,locking may help you
If you are averaging, nothing stops you from closing in minus and opening again.
No, there is absolutely no difference in closing on SL and then reopening when the price comes back and locking and then opening a position.
Yeah, I guess so.
Agreed on the title "lord of virtual interfaces".
It could be otherwise: "victim of virtual interfaces".
Yeah, I guess so.
I agree to the title "master of virtual interfaces".
I'm reminded of a phrase from a movie: Just call me Master.)
Let's call you Virtual Overlord.)