My approach. The core is the engine. - page 107
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
That's what OOP is good for !
...
But you are lucky. You have an excellent memory. I envy you.
Thank you, George, but in addition to tenacity, memory and thinking must be structured. That's what you all use OOP for. It structures your thinking and memory. I have no need for it. I look at my code through the OOP prism anyway. Even though it's written without actual OOP. I have an OOP prism of view(virtual OOP), and therefore I don't have to follow all the rules of actual OOP in my code.
...
Don't "rip out" functions from the class. You're lucky that the ripped out functions didn't "pull" anything. By the way, thanks to encapsulation and absence of global variables. If this class wasn't written in OOP-style, you wouldn't have been able to "rip out" this code so easily.
...
In fact, this class turned out to be very easy to parse. The functions of the class interact with each other, but they're easy to take out. They are very simple in general. And the class is just a wrapper. Like a list. So, I don't see the need to access such simple drawing mechanisms through extra wrappers...
...
In reality, for those who can programme, but prefer to trade with their hands, all of Peter's work is very interesting. However, I somehow do not see such people, but Peter says that they can be nurtured, created. Obviously - by showing the advantages of such hand trading.
...
Not to trade by hand, George, but to interfere with robot trading if you want to.
We need to build sophisticated robots with lots of possibilities. Otherwise, we'll end up with signals.
There will be no robots at all. There will be only signals. And, the degradation of business in general.
A human being is much easier to program than a computer. Parenting is also programming. There are such idiotic programs in people's heads... It's amazing. But they, too, listen to the voice of reason... It only does not prevent them from executing the idiotic program laid down in their subconsciousness. So, it is possible to educate.
Not to trade hands, George, but to interfere with robot trading if you want to.
We need to build complex robots with lots of possibilities. Otherwise, we'll end up with signals.
Oh, no.
"It is when a robot does most of the work and a human handles the force majeure.
In your case, it's the other way around. Most of the work is done by a human, and the robot is just "finishing up". For example, it picks up trailing robot. For 'meddling' - all those visual controls are practically useless - the situation is evaluated intuitively (another question - how does an average user of your library have much experience to correctly evaluate the situation). Just your library represents a convenience not for the one who "interferes", but for the one who looks at the situation all the time, and makes almost all actions manually (and the second question - where are they, such participants).
And about "sophisticated robots" - I've already said it more than once. It's not worth the trouble. They stop working at the same frequency as the simplest ones, but require far more resources to develop. What is the point then?
No.
"Intervention" is when a robot does most of the work and a human handles force majeure.
That's exactly what I'm designing.
...
In your case, it's the other way around. A human does most of the work and the robot just "does the rest". Say, it picks up trailing. For "meddling" - all those visual controls are practically useless - the situation is evaluated intuitively (another question - how does the average user of your library have much experience to correctly evaluate the situation). ....
It's not like that. I develop tools to add ANY features to robots. ANY semi-automated system, can function with varying degrees of automation. That's what controllers and information output are for. To regulate the degree of automation.
New capabilities will lead to the accretion of strategies within robots. One robot will be able to carry a lot of strategies, and the user will choose and adjust them.
There is no way you can understand. Traders' views on the market and trading are volatile and fickle. They can be misdirected. This was already done when they forced traders to trade electronically rather than physically in the pit.
It's not like that. I develop tools to add ANY capability to robots. ANY semi-automated system, can function with varying degrees of automation. That's what controllers and information output are for. To regulate the degree of automation.
New capabilities will lead to the accretion of strategies within robots. One robot will be able to carry a lot of strategies, and the user will choose and adjust them.
There is no way you can understand. Traders' views on the market and trading are volatile and fickle. They can be misdirected. It was already done that way when they forced traders to trade electronically rather than physically in the pit.
I can't understand it.
If a robot does the main work, and a human just removes the force majeure - there is no need in visual controls - all such situations, as I know, are handled intuitively. Controls are needed just for routine work, when a person is constantly "in action".
This is what I am talking about when I mention the "narrowness of the target audience". You say, "tools to add any features" - but for force majeure, you don't need any such features, because it is force majeure, a rare event, working on an intuitive level, in my opinion, all these visual features will only hinder. There are a lot of traders who are like me - but controls are useless for them, force majeure is managed on a "low level".
Visual controls will help and provide convenience in the case of routine work, when a person is constantly looking at the chart once every three minutes. That's just the extra convenience of visual controls is very helpful. But only I do not see such people on this forum.
You say "they can be steered in the right direction"... well, well... try leading a "trader's revolution"... See how you do.
I can't figure it out.
....
No. You don't understand.)
You don't understand that a trading robot, is a TOOL. In the hands of a naive man who believes in the Grail. There are no rules here. I want to let you interact with this toy to make it more fun to play. And you're taking it too seriously. Like, something depends on the trading robot and the trading strategy.... This is the main misconception. Illusion....))
Let them play serious trading robots, with lots of possibilities. You think that won't interest them? Wrong...))
No. You don't understand.)
You don't understand that a trading robot, is a TOOL. In the hands of a naive man who believes in the Grail. There are no rules here. I want to let you interact with this toy to make it more fun to play. And you're taking it too seriously. Like, something depends on the trading robot and the trading strategy.... This is the main misconception. Illusion....))
Let them play serious trading robots, with lots of possibilities. You think that won't interest them? Wrong...))
A trading robot is a Toy ??? And a serious trading robot is a BULDER ???
You little baby!
I can't figure it out.
....
Stop thinking like a trader for a second. Forget pragmatism. Look at algotrading as entertainment. Adventurous. Like an exciting creativity. And you'll understand me.
It is the entertainment industry that is the most dominant on the internet. If you gradually move towards GAME rather than hard trader's work, it's a new Klondike.
There's creativity, intelligence, luck and excitement. It has everything that young and naive adventurers who believe in the magical tale of the Grail need...)