What would it take to get everyone to finally switch to MT5? (collecting opinions) - page 44
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
SymbolInfoDouble(...,MODE_BID) - do not require updating.
Yes, but SymbolInfoTick() is there - I'm talking about the class, and how it's organized to get Bid and Ask - just return values of variables. And data writing into structure is made in RefreshRates(). I don't understand why a forced call of RefreshRates() inside methods Bid() and Ask() will slow down everything? We have to call RefreshRates() before each call of Bid() and Ask() methods with check of its result. Why not put it into methods at once and return either a price or 0.
I see that two calls to RefreshRates() are made when getting Bid and Ask at once. Well then write in RefreshRates() method filling variables with data about Bid and Ask.
Or leave it as it is.
These are yes, but SymbolInfoTick() - I'm talking about the class, and how it's organized to get Bid and Ask - just returning variable values. And data record to structure is made in RefreshRates(). I don't understand why a forced call of RefreshRates() inside methods Bid() and Ask() will slow down everything? We have to call RefreshRates() before each call of Bid() and Ask() methods with check of its result. Why not put it into methods at once and return either a price or 0.
I see that two calls to RefreshRates() are made when getting Bid and Ask at once. Well then write in RefreshRates() method filling of variables with data about Bid and Ask.
Or just leave it as it is.
On a new tick (in OnTick()) you refresh once and make calculations, while in the calculations the Bid() and Ask() can be called ten times. If data are copied into the structure every time, although the probability of their change is minimal, it won't have a positive impact on the speed. Also, you shouldn't just update the data, but only directly before using it.
On a new tick (in OnTick()), you update once and make calculations, while in calculations, Bid() and Ask() are called maybe ten times. If data are copied into the structure every time, although the probability of their change is minimal, it will not affect the speed positively. Also, you shouldn't just update the data, but only immediately before using it.
There may already be such a nuance in 5. The lag is observed, unlike in 4.
What makes the programmers (developers) think they know what traders need?
What makes Renat and Rashid think that they can "decide" what traders need, write it, and then force everyone to switch to it?
They will only write terminals based on the gut feeling method. They have written one terminal and another.
So, like the programmers in Market, they are writing different products. What traders like best - that is what they use.
As a stubborn mt-quarterback, I will give you my poignant opinion:
What makes the programmers (developers) think they know what traders need?
What makes Renat and Rashid think that they can "decide" what traders need, write it, and then force everyone to switch to it?
They will only write terminals based on the gut feeling method. They have written one terminal and another.
So, like the programmers in Market, they are writing different products. What traders like best - that is what they use.
I fully subscribe to this opinion. Why should programmers decide what traders use? But there is such a "demand" for a terminal that will not glitch, will not slow down and will read files including those written in mql4... If it's MT5, then why not use such a "universal" terminal of "new generation"? And, if not, and there is the old, proven MT4..., then the choice is definitely not in favor of "not new", no matter how "hyper best" it is described in three pages, again, in the sole opinion of programmers (developers). There is a customer's request and need, and it must be taken into account. If you want to put all traders on MT5, make it so that it meets the needs of the masses, and not of one or two people who have decided that they are smarter than others.
I fully subscribe to this opinion. Why should programmers decide what traders use? But there is such a "demand" for a terminal that will not glitch, will not slow down and will read files including those written in mql4... If it's MT5, then why not use such a "universal" terminal of "new generation"? And, if not, and there is the old, proven MT4..., then the choice is definitely not in favor of "not new", no matter how "hyper best" it is described in three pages, again, in the sole opinion of programmers (developers). There is a customer's request and need, and it must be taken into account. If you want to move all of the traders to MT5, make it so that it meets the needs of the masses, and not of one or two people who have decided that they are smarter than others.
Well, that's right too.
It's a funny thread.
If a forum post is twenty-four hours long with tens or hundreds of lines, that's fine. But if you write two extra lines in code once, it's a disaster. ))
Ban all the hooligans and that's all.
It's a funny thread.
If a forum post is twenty-four hours long with tens or hundreds of lines, that's fine. But if you write two extra lines in code once, it's a disaster. ))
Ban all the hooligans, that's all.
Just think why they and at whose expense they promote such a subject.
There are no unselfish players, but there are a mighty handful of "independent" developers with zero products and who are constantly plagued by work on related MT4 services and companies. Yeah, they're the ones who are well entrenched here. You can't just throw everyone out, so we put up with it all for the time being.
Where do you think such irrational and stubborn statements come from? Everything is bought from marketing companies, where mql5.com has been listed for years. Even we manage to offer "promote your platform in forex services: xxx, mql5.com, xxx).
A special thank you to the haters. We remember and love you!You just have to wonder why and at whose expense they are promoting such a theme.
There are no unselfish players here, but there are a mighty bunch of "independent" developers with zero products and who are constantly plagued by work on related MT4 services and companies. Yeah, they're the ones who are well entrenched here. You can't just throw everyone out, so we put up with it all for the time being.
Where do you think such irrational and stubborn statements come from? Everything is bought from marketing companies, where mql5.com has been listed for years. They even manage to offer us "promote your platform in forex services: xxx, mql5.com, xxx).
Special thanks to the haters. We remember and love you!Renat just amazes me, your insistence on adding a fly in the ointment to your barrel of honey...
There's a great multifunctional platform created, but abandoning the essentials of the old one makes it all go away...
You just have to wonder why and at whose expense they are promoting such a theme.
There are no unselfish players here, but there are a mighty bunch of "independent" developers with zero products and who are constantly plagued by work on related MT4 services and companies. Yeah, they're the ones who are well entrenched here. You can't just throw everyone out, so we put up with it all for the time being.
Where do you think such irrational and stubborn statements come from? Everything is bought from marketing companies, where mql5.com has been listed for years. Even we manage to offer "promote your platform in forex services: xxx, mql5.com, xxx).
A special thanks to the haters. We remember and love you!No dear admin. Just saw an interesting topic and decided to unsubscribe to it. To give an answer from an ordinary user, why it's been N years and new MT5 remains unclaimed on the showcase...". Really I understand that in response to my quite constructive criticism I get typical answers: "It's not MT5 that's bad, it's just that we're such stubborn "***" who don't want to understand the whole thing..."
I would like to believe that such words are not the official position of platform developers towards their clients.