Self-learning the MQL5 language from scratch - page 19

New comment
 
Valeriy Yastremskiy:

Does decomposing mean separating?

Although the question is not for me, using that list as an example: Here you are looking at the ME. The navigator is open on the left. It contains all the files and folders. You set a task to reproduce it in a working state in your mql-program. You start to speculatively "decompose" (decompose into related parts, properties, behavior, patterns) the MT list and "compose" a copy of it in your head, then on paper, then in code. Imho.
 
Vasiliy Sokolov:

You want my advice when I haven't seen your code or the problem you were solving? I also honestly don't know how or what you decomposed. I can't say anything about that.

I propose such a law:

"If something works well and performs all its functions, then it's professionally done."

So, you don't have to look at the code (writing standards can deceive the impression), but you have to look at the result. If it works without criticism - everything was perfectly decomposed and compiled back. :) Isn't it?
 
Реter Konow:
I propose such a law:
"If something works well and performs all its functions, then it is professionally done.
Therefore, it is not necessary to look at the code (writing standards may deceive the impression), but it is necessary to look at the result. If it works without criticism - everything was perfectly decomposed and compiled back. :) Isn't it?

No.

 
Vasiliy Sokolov:

In simplistic terms, yes.

I don't think just splitting up the main tasks into subtasks is a basic skill. It's easier to live and code with this skill.))))

Optimizing logic, optimizing and resharpening code is a second task after creating logic. )) And then there's competent testing).

In general, only being able to drive a car well and knowing how it is built does not enable you to make full use of it))))

 
Vasiliy Sokolov:

No.

Doesthe decomposition of an object have to follow a set instruction/protocol? What if striving for creative freedom gets in the way?)) What if the 'I' stands in opposition to the 'they' and this is where inspiration comes from?) Give up and become 'one of' instead of 'one'?

Existential questions, however...))
 
Реter Konow:
I propose such a law:

"If something works well and performs all its functions, then it is professionally done.

Therefore, it is not necessary to look at the code (writing standards may deceive the impression), but it is necessary to look at the result. If it works without criticism - everything was perfectly decomposed and compiled back. :) Isn't it?

Also no. Working well and being comfortable to repair are different things.

Works well, code understandable to others, easy to repair) Then the pros will appreciate it)

 
Реter Konow:
I propose such a law:

"If something works well and performs all its functions, then it is professionally done.

Therefore, it is not necessary to look at the code (writing standards may deceive the impression), but it is necessary to look at the result. If it works without criticism - everything was perfectly decomposed and compiled back. :) Isn't it?

I propose to call this law by its legal name - diayway

 
Seriously, there cannot be a format/rules for mental decomposition of tasks, because people are different and everybody's thinking is different. However, the result is the quintessence of mental work, which demonstrates the quality of this decomposition/composition in the reproduced object.
 
Valeriy Yastremskiy:

I don't think just splitting up the main tasks into subtasks is a basic skill. It's easier to live and code with this skill.))))

Optimizing logic, optimizing and resharpening code is a second task after creating logic. )) And then there's competent testing).

So it is only being able to drive a car well and knowing how it is built that prevents you from making full use of it))))

Decomposition is code optimization and solving. These are not the second and third tasks. This is decomposition. And creating logics is also decomposition. Everything is decomposition. You do one task and solve all at once. That is the point.

 
Реter Konow:
Does the decomposition of an object have to be done according to a given instruction/protocol?

Yes, decomposition is quite a concrete set of steps: "Do one, do two, do three". It's almost an exact algorithm. So precise, for example, that Resharper can do many things from decomposition. The only reason it doesn't do everything is because everyone's needs are different, there's no common basis for it.

1...121314151617181920212223242526...84
New comment
Reason: