Collaborative project development in MQL5 - our future? - page 6
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
I liked working directly with memory in C++. I didn't have such an opportunity 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...)
Any language has a "twist", which you can choose not to apply, no one is forcing you to do so.
I remember when jQuery came to javascript, there was so much noise, no one knows it, the possibilities are vast... but you can not use it.
It's the same in mql, you can use OOP or no OOP.
In general, with languages, I see a clear trend towards increasing complexity and capabilities. Just read specifications of C++11, 14, 17 and C# 5,6,7.
So what? If you don't understand it, don't use it, that's enough.
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 all the same, the moans of sufferers will probably never subside).
Of course you must only use what you need, but the question is WHY?! Who thought it all up and why?! Why should a developer waste time even on a superficial knowledge of unnecessary entities not to get lost among them? From my point of view, such a "crowded" language is unfavourable for any development. If literary novels were written in C++ all its syntactic "twists" and instrumental "gimmicks" would be appreciated by sad souls of romantics, but in the world of mechanisms such superfluities are harmful. Imho.
Hence, it's only my opinion, Alexey. Don't take it to heart).
Of course you should only use what you need, but the question is WHY?! Who came up with all this and why?! Why should a developer spend time on even superficial knowledge of superfluous entities so that he doesn't get lost among them? From my point of view, such a "crowded" language is unfavourable for any development. If C++ was used for writing literary novels all its syntactic "twists" and instrumental "gimmicks" would be appreciated by sad souls of romantics, but in the world of mechanisms such superfluities are harmful. Imho.
That's just my opinion, Alexey. Don't take it to heart).
You know, any pro must improve his knowledge, and not use 50 years the same, and spend some time to learn something new, in the future will only give an increase in productivity, and demand in the labor market.
Any language has a "twist", which you can choose not to apply, no one is forcing you to do so.
I remember when jQuery came to javascript, there was so much noise, no one knows it, the possibilities are vast... but you can not use it.
It's the same in mql, you can use OOP or not.
The fifth wheel in the cart will always get in the way. That's the problem. If we can effectively, easily and quickly without OOP, then logically we do not need OOP at all.
I emphasize - on the logic of things.
It is like when one will have a third hand. Of course, you may not use it...))
The fifth wheel in the trolley will always get in the way. Here's the problem. If you can effectively, easily and quickly without OOP, then logically, you don't need OOP at all.
I'd like to underline the logic of things.
It's like when a person grows a third arm. You can, of course, not use it...
Eh, I wish I had a third hand, because the girls have three places to hold on to, but only two hands, unfortunately.
Sometimes it's effective to have three hands, but more often than not, one will get in the way.
You know, any pro should improve their knowledge rather than using the same knowledge for 50 years, and spending some time to learn something new will only give a future increase in productivity, and demand in the labour market.
You know, any pro should improve their knowledge, not use the same knowledge for 50 years, and spending some time learning something new will only give a future increase in productivity, and demand in the labour market.
Right. I remember in C# before version 4 to create a thread you had to create it by hand, very close to win api. There was a lot of pain with providing atomic operations, thread synchronization, etc. And then new tools for paralleling started to appear and there was less writing and routine. So, more plushies, good and different!
Eh, I wish I had a third hand, because the girls have three places to hold on to, but only two hands, unfortunately.
Sometimes it's effective to have three hands, but more often than not one will get in the way.
Of course. However, new isn't always useful. You have to be very choosy with this 'new'. You have to test the necessity of everything new in practice.
Well I check on projects created by someone else, and if I like it, I use it myself. Well, it depends on taste and colour... Sometimes I come across such bikes, and it happens because many people use "new, for the sake of new", although you can write in the classic way in three lines.