Canvas is cool! - page 53
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
Dimitri, it's a primitive way of asserting yourself.
That's what I mean... in front of people who can't write three lines of code.
That's what I mean... In front of people who can't write three lines of code.
Something like that?
Quite unexpected! ))) Great!
Dimitri, this is a primitive way of asserting yourself.
I didn't even respond to Dimitri's "remark".
Are you guys still going through puberty? You're preoccupied with self-affirmation issues.
Or is this the result of learning to program on console applications?
An evening of amazing tales straight from the broken records has begun.
The problem in reality is that people really can't get into a higher level. There's nothing you can do about it.
This is what the complexity problem looks like:
The process evolves in increasing complexity and functionality, because the lower levels cannot provide solutions due to increased requirements or are simply not economically viable. This is the kind of progress that prevents backtracking.
Of course whole strata of traders don't even know what they're talking about and banally fall off. And it is almost impossible to educate them - a paltry number of people will invest thousands of hours of training, the reason for the pain.
That is why there are people who do not know the problems, but with flags calling for the lower levels. Down with progress!
We are developing opportunities for those whoRenat, and it's great that you are developing the platform towards functionality.
Those who fall away, that is their choice. And those who want to develop, they will always develop!
For example my case. I am not a programmer, I have never studied programming with university professors.
But thanks to the language mql, I understood the structure of the language as a whole, which prompted me to studythe basics of the Clanguage.
After I understood the basics of C, I finally understood C++ oOP, also thanks to mql examples.
And now I can easily write my own programs in mql, C, C++, Py. I have understood how dlls function and how to write them.
Then I've learned how threads and their synchronization work, and now I've learned how memory works, and use it all in my programs.
Of course, I don't know a lot of things, but everything is being learned as you need it. It's like a drug to learn something new in programming )))
That's why those who remain on one level of development, that's their fate. While you are developing your product and giving an opportunity to those who want to.
And the new functionality stimulates to learn the principles of its work. So develop your product on a professional level.
And the problem of complexity is a natural selection process in any field of activity.
This is what the complexity problem looks like:
The process evolves in complexity and functionality because the lower levels cannot provide solutions due to increased requirements or are simply not economically viable. This is the progress that keeps it from rolling back.
Of course, whole layers of traders do not even understand what they are talking about and are simply unable to be trained. And it is practically impossible to train them - a paltry number of people will invest thousands of hours in training, the reason for the pain.
That is why there are people who do not know the problems, but with flags calling for the lower levels. Down with progress!
We develop opportunities for those whoIt seemed to me that all Nicholas originally meant was that MT lacks functionality in terms of high-level graphical libraries, that's all.
Creating high-level libraries - I don't think it's a step up to lower levels, pardon the pun. Look at Python - it's mostly just popular with beginners due to its abundance of libraries.
A high-level library is all aboutincreasing functionality with as little complexity as possible. This is the right way of development, because increased complexity in itself is an evil in any system.
It seemed to me that what Nikolai originally meant was that MT lacks functionality in terms of high-level graphical libraries, that's all.
Creating high-level libraries is not a step up to lower levels, pardon the pun. Look at Python - it's mostly just popular with beginners due to its abundance of libraries.
A high-level library is all about increasing functionality with as little complexity as possible. This is the right way of development, because increased complexity in itself is an evil in any system.
In one of the announcements, it was written that a new type of software - modules - will be available in the near future.
I wonder what functionality these modules will bring. Perhaps they will be graphical modules as well.
It would be interesting to read Renat's comments on these modules.
What will they be, what functionality, what are they for in general ?
If it's the modularity of the metatrader's interface, it will be awesome.
....
A high-level library is all aboutincreasing functionality with as little complexity as possible. This is the right way of development, because increasing complexity itself is an evil in any system.
It seemed to me that what Nikolai originally meant was that MT lacks functionality in terms of high-level graphical libraries, that's all.
Creating high-level libraries is not a step up to lower levels, pardon the pun. Look at Python - it's mostly just popular with beginners due to its abundance of libraries.
A high-level library is all about increasing functionality with as little complexity as possible. This is the right way of development, because increased complexity by itself is an evil in any system.
Look at the CCanvas, CCanvas3D and CGraphic interface of the standard library. Look at the control library for building interfaces in /Controls.
There is already a lot of space for possibilities. And it is simple enough.
But god forbid 1% of people get there even to see the presence of such features. It's at this step that things die - people can't even see the possibilities, not "it's hard for them to use it".
If you lose 99% of all potential users at entry, then further optimisation of training or incentives no longer matters.
And why lost? Because everyone is too lazy to even look, read or bother.
And the problem cannot be solved by any quick/efficient/magical actions. Only by methodical training, which we have been doing for 20 years.
Question: who knows that we have about 500 very powerful mathematical functions in the standard library, similar to the basic functionality of R?