Declaring variables behind the loop or inside the loop? - page 9
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 don't get it, do I?
I doubt you didn't know.
It's understandable.
I'd like something like that:
That's understandable.
I'd like something like:
Well, put the blocks in, that's what I always do.
Or are two brackets too many )?
Well and arrange the blocks, that's what I always do.
Or are two brackets too many )?
It's not just a lot... It's like Everest on your head... )))))))))
That's what old age means - I always thought "two brackets" were supposed to open with something...
And that they can just "localize" some code - I'm not sure....
Live and learn! Praise ... me )))) - I am always glad to learn what I did not know.
And thank you! )))))))))
1953-2008 father
1953-2019 father-in-law
My sympathies and condolences. I'm a year younger, or even less. So I don't need to fill up my vocabulary any more.
My sympathies and condolences. I'm a year younger, or even less. So I don't need to fill up my vocabulary any more.
OK
it's not about vocabulary, it's about understanding that you were introduced to computing 30+ years ago and there were simple programming languages, Pascal, Basic, Fortran, Assembler and...
but the fact that now you use Windows - click the mouse - get the result or android/appletophone..... is a merit of programmers who are not sitting on old efficient languages, but are writing many and very many software solutions, thanks to OOP and other programming paradigms
New programming styles increase the speed of software development, and this is more important than performance, because it is not a fact that the new software will be in demand by the market (users), and time is ticking? - Which of the companies developing software are ready to be the developer of a single software solution for the whole history of the company? - If the market (users) accept the idea of a new software - then, and only then, does it make sense to fight for the performance of the software, even if you rewrite it in Assembler!
Developers of compilers, RAD, frameworks and other tools also adjust their products to technologies in demand, i.e. in the end thinking that OOP is something terribly slow or using short auxiliary functions is not an effective solution.... , and if I write a "linear bit of code" - it will be effective, but not actually, and most likely it will be the opposite
such a story ;)
OK
it's not about vocabulary, it's about understanding that you were introduced to computing 30+ years ago and there were simple programming languages, Pascal, Basic, Fortran, Assembler and...
but the fact that now you use Windows - click the mouse - get the result or android/appletophone..... is the merit of programmers who are not sitting on old efficient languages, but are writing lots and lots of software solutions, thanks to OOP and other programming paradigms
New programming styles increase the speed of software development, and this is more important than performance, because it is not a fact that the new software will be in demand by the market (users), and time is ticking? - Which of the companies developing software are ready to be the developer of a single software solution for the whole history of the company? - If the market (users) accept the idea of a new software - then, and only then, does it make sense to fight for the performance of the software, even if you rewrite it in Assembler!
Developers of compilers, RAD, frameworks and other tools also adjust their products to technologies in demand, i.e. in the end thinking that OOP is something terribly slow or using short auxiliary functions is not an effective solution.... , and if I write a "linear bit of code" - it will be effective, but not necessarily, and most likely it will be the opposite
that's the story ;)
So why try to squeeze something out of him that he doesn't need? What's the use of trying to make some calculations as fast as possible, if many milliseconds, sometimes even seconds, pass from tick to tick.
Some people do their work as if on an assembly line - they get the TOR (or their idea), they do the rest - they get the TOR...
and some are always looking for a way to do the job twice as fast the next time they have free time
And some are always looking for a way to speed up execution of each code fragment and then find optimal call structure to increase performance
there's only -- everyone has their own way? ))))
The human factor has an effect here, some people do their work like on an assembly line - they get their ToR, they do it - they get their ToR...
Some are constantly looking for a way to make this work twice as fast the next time they have free time
And someone is constantly looking for a way to make each code fragment faster, and then find the best structure of calls to make it faster
I think there's only -- everyone has his own way? ))))
All in all, this is a useless discussion. You waste so much time trying to figure out what the customer meant by this code that you may have to rewrite the code several times. So how fast do you need to write it? To do as you understood it and then try to find out what the client meant when applying to arbitration?
And in general, I was only talking about restraint. There's no need to overload the code in MQL, often with useless object creations.
There are many examples of uselessness, but I don't feel like discussing this topic anymore.
gives out, string and print is not an indicator of variable handling
'tst.mq5' tst.mq5 1 1
possible use of uninitialized variable 'c' tst.mq5 16 10
possible use of uninitialized variable 'e' tst.mq5 20 17
code generated 1 1
0 error(s), 2 warning(s), 526 msec elapsed 1 3
Ok, it gives out when you explicitly use uninitialized in calculations. That's good.
OK
it's not about vocabulary, it's about understanding that you were introduced to computing 30+ years ago and there were simple programming languages, Pascal, Basic, Fortran, Assembler and...
but the fact that now you use Windows - click the mouse - get the result or android/appletophone..... is the merit of programmers who are not sitting on old efficient languages, but are writing lots and lots of software solutions, thanks to OOP and other programming paradigms
New programming styles increase the speed of software development, and this is more important than performance, because it is not a fact that the new software will be in demand by the market (users), and time is ticking? - Which of the companies developing software are ready to be the developer of a single software solution for the whole history of the company? - If the market (users) accept the idea of a new software - then, and only then, does it make sense to fight for the performance of the software, even if you rewrite it in Assembler!
Developers of compilers, RAD, frameworks and other tools also adjust their products to technologies in demand, i.e. in the end thinking that OOP is something terribly slow or using short auxiliary functions is not an effective solution.... , and if I write a "linear bit of code" - it will be effective, but not actually, and most likely it will be the opposite
that's the story ;)
When I was hired I mostly worked in the field of embedded, dsp etc., although I can do desktop and database stuff, I don't remember it now. Well, at embedded level switching to OOP often reduces performance by half or two times. There was a lot of work with assembler, you read the generated code in asm and you see there is so much unnecessary gestures. But this is all trifles in our reality. When I buy a decent video card I will be able to write for OpenCL. I will become cool ))