One of the reasons why brokers don't like MT5 - 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
My version is purely conspiracy, but why not? It might be easier to draw questionable quotes with MT4. See for yourself. Suppose a dealing company constantly cheats with quotes: it draws a snot, then it whips out stops, while no one ever had such quotes in the market. The clients start to be indignant and contact the technical support. If brokerage companies trade with MT5, clients may always point out that Just2Trade, an authoritative quote provider for this terminal, did not offer anything similar. This is not LMAX or Currenex, it is easier to sign a contract with Just2Trade for connection to the liquidity pool. If they have an MT5 terminal, then logically they have to deal with Just2Trade. And if the office only has MT4, then it is like a closed club: they can bullshit anyone, and the client has no logical arguments.
I have the same feeling too. So, personally, I don't deal with a broker now in at least two cases: if they don't have MT5 or (and) they have binary options.
Your explanation is along the lines of: "We fail in business not because of our mistakes, but because the world and people are wrong. When they are right, we will be first!
To explain away laziness is to explain nothing. Unfortunately.
Stupid irrational laziness explains it all very succinctly. People are too lazy to get to the bottom of it, it's easier for them to find excuses.
By the way, I was discussing this topic a year and a half ago.
Stupid irrational laziness explains it all very succinctly. People are too lazy to get to the bottom of it, it's easier for them to find excuses.
By the way, I was discussing this topic a year and a half ago.
I've read this thread before. I agreed with your point of view then. I think differently now.
Yes, on the one hand laziness is an obstacle. On the other hand is the desire to save one's own time and energy on inefficient work. Laziness manifests itself when there is little motivation to act. Motivation is determined by the output (benefit) of the action.
If people are lazy to use a tool in their work, it means that the tool consumes their energy more than necessary. Consequently, you should optimize the tool and not the person.
Let's evaluate the platform from the viewpoint of human effort consumption in language learning and program writing. Let's calculate the cost of effort and the return on the user's labour by using both platforms.
I read this thread earlier. I agreed with your point of view then. I think differently now.
Yes, on the one hand laziness is an obstacle. On the other hand it is the desire to save one's own time and energy on inefficient work. Laziness manifests itself when there is little motivation to act. Motivation is determined by the output (benefit) of the action.
If people are lazy to use a tool in their work, it means that the tool consumes their energy more than necessary. Hence, it is not a person but a tool that needs to be optimized.
Let's evaluate the platform in terms of human resources consumption for learning the language and writing programs. Conditionally, let's calculate the input and output of the user's labour when using both platforms.
Petr, what do you mean? I do not understand you. MQL4 and MQL5 are absolutely the same complexity languages, they are like little brother and big brother. I'm telling you - people are always looking for excuses because of their laziness. By the way, you are a vivid example of that. Instead of using OOP and debugger, you find a bunch of excuses not to do it.
...I don't understand you. MQL4 and MQL5 are absolutely the same complexity of languages...
Not really. The MQL5 compiler has a lot more pickings. Consequently, the user needs to know the language better and program more professionally. This can be both good and bad. There are two sides to the coin. Beginners need to quickly check their strategies, and they don't have time for a serious study of programming. A picky compiler, OOP, and other inconveniences will be a stick in their wheels.
As for me, I can hardly be called lazy. I work 8-10 hours a day. I'm programming and implementing my ideas. I simply don't need OOP. Less efficient code. A paradigm aimed at structuring human thinking, which sacrifices the absolute efficiency of mechanisms. I already think in classes and structures. I don't need to structure my thinking. For me, OOP is inefficient. I save on the overhead it creates.
Peter, what are you talking about? I don't understand you. MQL4 and MQL5 are absolutely the same languages in terms of complexity, they are like little brother and big brother. I'm telling you - people are always looking for excuses because of their laziness. By the way, you are a vivid example of that. Instead of using OOP and a debugger, you find a bunch of excuses not to do it.
Totally agree, started with 4, now completely switched to 5. The scalability in 5 is very good. It is convenient to work with history (terminal loads everything by itself), less load on hardware, more convenient to use other indicators, requires more accurate analysis of EA's testing, and moreover - multi-threaded testing. I.e. 5 has much more advantages, compared to 4, if only we had the desire to learn. If you do not understand something, it does not mean that it is a bad thing.
Fully supportive, started with 4, now completely switched to 5. Scalability of 5 is very good. Convenient to work with history (terminal loads everything by itself), less load on hardware, calling other indicators is more convenient, analysis of EA testing is much more convenient, again, multi-threaded testing. I.e. 5 has much more advantages, compared to 4, if only we had the desire to learn. If you do not understand something, it does not mean it is a bad thing.
Regarding iron load, I have the opposite, MT5 has 4 times more CPU load than MT4. Take a look at the CPU time, all terminals have been running for the last two days. All 64bit terminals are MT5, all 32bit terminals are MT4. The functions performed by both terminals are exactly the same.
Fully supportive, started with 4, now completely switched to 5. Scalability of 5 is very good. Convenient to work with history (terminal loads everything by itself), less load on hardware, calling other indicators is more convenient, analysis of EA testing is much more convenient, again, multi-threaded testing. I.e. 5 has much more advantages, compared to 4, if only we had the desire to learn. If you do not understand something, it does not mean it is a bad thing.
The load on hardware and the size of consumed memory of MT5 are many times higher. But the built-in functionality is much wider. Besides there is almost no tendency to unpredictable hang-ups.