Collaborative project development in MQL5 - our future? - page 3

New comment
 
Реter Konow:

(P.S. Perhaps then EAs will need a GUI. The developers won't handle their MEGA EAs with a MEGA table of input parameters...)

One what about it, and you are still on your own.) Was it the purpose of your post? ) Kind of start from afar and gradually lead readers to your idea that GUI is the head for everything, what programmers should do without GUI...


And on the subject, I don't see the point in reinventing the wheel once again. That's me referring to Renate's idea mentioned. They already wasted a lot of time inventing a clone of C++, now they want to spend more on inventing a clone of GitHub and others? Completely irrational approach, imho. It would be better to improve what they have. For example Metaeditor that still has neither full-fledged syntax highlighting, nor work with projects/solutions as in normal IDEs.

 
Andrey Kisselyov:

the company does not owe anyone anything, it makes the product for its own reasons and purposes. it makes no difference whether the product is suitable for you or not.

With respect.

Well, you should have at least removed your trademark "with respect" to make it look less hypocritical.))
 
Alexey Navoykov:
One thing's for sure, but you're still on the same page.) Was that the point of your post? ) Like to start from afar and gradually lead the reader to your idea that GUI is the head of everything, what programmers can do without GUI...


No, the purpose of the post was to find out the development potential of MQ, on which my development potential can largely depend.
 
Реter Konow:
Well, you should at least have removed your trademark "with respect" to make it look less hypocritical.))
as one forum member said: "getting personal means you have no argument".
your opinion of my signature does not interest me.

with respect.

P.S. this conversation is over.
 
Alexey Navoykov:

And on the subject, I don't see the point in reinventing the wheel once again. I'm referring to Renate's idea mentioned above. They already wasted a lot of time inventing a clone of C++, now they want to spend more on inventing a clone of GitHub and others? Completely irrational approach, imho. It would be better to improve what they have. For example, Metaeditor that still doesn't have neither full-fledged syntax highlighting, nor work with projects/solutions, like in normal IDEs.

I don't know, I think otherwise.

Imagine how much popularity the platform had if robots were written in C++? There's such a "forest and swamp" that people in the community would be "one, two and counting").

In my opinion, they did everything right. They developed their own language, social network, marketplace. Made them separate and the platform closed to connectivity. For some reason, it seems to me that this is how they survived and rose to the current level amongst their competitors.

 
Реter Konow:

I quoted from Andrey Kisselyov.

Read his post above.

Explain why the company is developing in this direction according to you? I cannot understand it in any way.


MQ has a clear course for the development of the community, this step will contribute to this development. And after all, we do not know what there and how it will be implemented. So far we can only look at the development of githab and guess.

 
Реter Konow:

I don't know, I think very differently.

Imagine how much popularity the platform had if the robots were written in C++? There's such a "forest and swamp" that people in the community would be "one, two and counting").

In my opinion, they did everything right. They have developed their own language, social network, and marketplace. Make them standalone, and the platform is closed to connectivity. For some reason, I think that is how they survived and rose to the current level among competitors.

If there were no mql, and there was C++, or any of the most sophisticated, they would write in it, because there's no choice, no one would even guess about mql.

When there is nothing to compare it with, there is no discussion.

 
Alexey Volchanskiy:

MQ has a clear commitment to community development and this move will contribute to that development. And we don't know what will be implemented and how. So far we can only look at the development of the githab and guess.

That's what I think. Of course, the idea of a completely open development for forex is not very suitable. Everything here is saturated with money and profit. Everyone is very sensitive about protecting their intellectual property. But if there is a possibility of closed development and the issue of financial distribution between project participants is resolved, then the potential may be there. Then there would really be a goal for many people to come together and work as a team.
 

Discussing the skin of an unkilled bear )) Perhaps they will make a collective product sale in the marketplace with profit sharing. For example, I come up with something, I need helpers.

Initially, I own 100% of future profits from sales. Let's think of this as analogous to a stock in an IPO.

I offer experienced developers to join, at the rate of n% of the s% package each, which I am willing to sell in exchange for participation. We meet once a month the company shareholders, if some developer-shareholder doesn't work, we exclude him from shareholders. And then feet in the bucket of concrete, you know the rest ))

 
Vitaly Muzichenko:

If there was no mql, and there was C++, or any of the most complicated ones, they would write in it, because there is no choice, no one had even a clue about mql.

When there is nothing to compare it with, there is no discussion either.

Of course, they would write them in C++, as they are writing robots for TWS for example. There are several other languages in the API. How can we compete with such monsters? It is possible to compete because there is no community there. Only professional programmers write robots for TWS, and ordinary coders have no access to algotrading on such platforms. Needed a simplification, and MQ provided it, conquering a large contingent of " grail seekers". That is why I think they did the right thing.
1234567891011
New comment
Reason: