Collaborative project development in MQL5 - our future? - page 5
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
It's about the rationality of achieving goals. For example, no one prevented MQL from taking a ready and debugged source code of some open source C++ compiler, adapt it to their needs and get a fully working and functional product within several months. Rather than wasting years and enormous resources on copying it and ruining users' nerves with constant bugs. It is the same here too. Why re-invent the wheel, if you can adapt a ready-made solution. Especially now it seems there are no difficulties with collaborative development in MQL, there is a cloud storage. What else there is to invent?
In fact, 99% of programmers in MQL are amateurs. They should learn to code on their own, what about team development?
I cannot say anything about the compiler. I don't know. Perhaps MQ had a good reason to develop its own compiler and not to adapt someone else's.
My development practice shows that it's hard to produce your own solution, but it's always more profitable in the long run. In other words, it's easy to develop your own development, while using someone else's, you will constantly stumble and rework. Figuratively speaking, for your own house, it is better to make your own foundation from scratch.
For example, I would not say anything bad about CCanvas, but it did not work for me when I was developing my graphics engine. If I had integrated it, I would not have been able to develop it freely now. Well, other people's tissues don't take root in the body.
It's about the rationality of achieving goals. For example, no one prevented MQL from taking a ready and debugged source code of some open source C++ compiler, adapt it to their needs and get a fully working and functional product within several months. Rather than wasting years and enormous resources on copying it and ruining users' nerves with constant bugs. It is the same here too. Why re-invent the wheel, if you can adapt a ready-made solution. Especially now it seems there are no difficulties with collaborative development in MQL, there is a cloud storage. What else there is to invent?
In fact, 99% of programmers in MQL are amateurs. They should learn to code all by themselves to begin with, what about team development?
I was always amazed at that too. I used to work for major foreign companies and nobody invented the wheel. They took open source code and ported it to some DSP, often multi-core, with parallel execution of instructions at a core. There were special groups of high-paid compiler developers who were just doing this porting. And I must say, it was very fast and of high quality.
Strange how MQ survived with this approach.
If you mean me, I won't say that development is exactly times more. Another thing, there would be many times more errors because of real pointers. I remember, at the beginning of my programming studies, in Turbo Pascal at the time, I couldn't understand why they were needed at all and how to use them. And the complexities of C++ can be used without them. I remember being asked tricky questions about C++ at some job interview. I answered that I don't use it and nobody uses these gimmicks. What Straustrup made up in his nightmares is not necessary in real life.
And agreed with me ))
As fate would have it, I programmed in C++ for a few months and was happy to finish my introduction to the language. ))
After that experience, I understood quite clearly the advantages of mql over C++ in robot development. Applied language, understandable for simple self-taught people.
If mql, as you say, is such a simple language, then why is there a "Freelance" section, why can't a housewife write a program herself?
Probably because it is as complicated as any other language. It's simple for those who write in it.
Vitaliy, there are a lot of people who understand the MQL code and can tweak some things, but they are not able to develop something from scratch. This is what I'm saying based on my experience in teaching people how to program.
It's like I can tweak some cool design, like change the colours in the editor, but I can't develop from scratch. That's not how brains work.
MQ's initial focus was that the majority would be poor people, so it was able to build up a critical mass of popularity, and it is like a snowball - the more you roll the snowball, the bigger it gets.
As fate would have it, I've been programming in C++ for a few months now, and was happy to finish my introduction to the language. ))
After this experience, I understood quite clearly the advantages of mql over C++ in robot development. An applied language that is understandable to mere self-taught people.
I like C++, like to use pointers and its libraries like STL, Boost and others. Although for the main mass of programmers the castration of C++ to the level of MQL is good. And MQ is aimed at the masses, not at the professionals.
Looking at the list of jobs, who's at the top of the list, guess?https://www.metaquotes.net/ru/company/vacancies
Plus the platform was originally designed for kitchen-trading, which is banned in many countries. So there was virtually no competition in this niche, which allowed MQ to easily take the leading positions, and even affected the style of communication between developers and users (dismissive and arrogant tone). I think with healthy competition things would have developed much more productively
The style is fine, you haven't talked to other software developers. It's just that 90% here cannot clearly state the essence of the question, they carry some muddy stream of scraps of thoughts, so they are answered in terms of, clarify, send pictures, logs, etc.
For example, where else have you seen SEO Renat answer questions on the forum?
Vitaly, there are plenty of people who understand MQL code, can tweak something, but are not able to develop something from scratch. I am saying this based on my experience of teaching people how to program.
It's like I can tweak some cool design, like change the colours in the editor, but I can't design from scratch. That's not how brains work.
You can find the same mass of "tweaks" in any language, it's not a measure of complexity. It's more a matter of habit, you got used to mql, that's why it's simple.
I'm writing in two other languages in parallel, and they seem to be easier, but when you quickly switch from one to another, there are some difficulties, you need to readjust. When I didn't know any of them, they were all very complicated for me, but I'm not the only one.
I like C++, I like using pointers and its libraries like STL, Boost and others. Although for the bulk of programmers the castration of C++ to the level of MQL is good. And MQ is oriented to the masses, not to pros.
Let's look at the list of vacancies, who's on the first place, guess?https://www.metaquotes.net/ru/company/vacancies
I liked in C++ the ability to work directly with memory. C# didn't have that feature... Otherwise, C++ left a negative impression on me. I'm sincerely convinced that this language is excessively and groundlessly complicated. Its complexity simply crosses all boundaries of common sense. It is hard to imagine more entities than it has been crammed into it. I have a very negative attitude towards superfluous entities...)
Simplicity and being mass-oriented is the key to success in the software world. Although our community likes it a bit complicated...)
In C++ I liked working directly with memory. It was impossible to do that in C#. As for the rest, C++ left a negative impression on me. I'm sincerely convinced that this language is overly and unreasonably complicated. Its complexity simply crosses all boundaries of common sense. It is hard to imagine more entities than it has been crammed into it. I have a very negative attitude towards superfluous entities...)
So don't use them, is someone forcing you to? It's like with the eternal moaning on the forum about OOP. If you don't want to use them, write in the usual procedural style, who's forcing you? But anyway, the moaning will probably never subside).