Self-learning the MQL5 language from scratch - page 16
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
No, of course you're not.))) (Just remembered we're on a first-name basis. It's been a long time since you've been here:))
Hee. I even attached to my previous post a link to your branch: My approach.kernel where we fought with you about OOP. Nostalgia... Two years have passed since then, man. This forum engine remembers our conversation))
What do you mean by junk? Can the alphabet, the primer, be junk? Can arithmetic be old?
You are a good programmer, but as a teacher you do not see the information relevant to the student and you misjudge his level. He needs to learn the basics in the right order, and only a good textbook helps).
Kovalev's tutorial is essentially a handbook of the language, told in a sequence: look, there is a for loop, it is used so and so, there is a while loop, it is used so and so, there are such types of data, and there are such. But the main question: why all this and what to do with it? So fuck this "book". And arrays are never the basics. The basics are functions and the ability to work with them. All the rest is implementation details.
Here, the best way to start learning an applied language for highly specialised tasks, without getting confused by amateurs' advice or breaking your head over ill-timed tasks:
Sergei Kovalev's textbookhttps://book.mql4.com/ru
Peter, this tutorial has already started studying this past weekend. But thanks for the link anyway! It is already added to my browser bookmarks.
Regards, Vladimir.
Hehe. The forum engine even attached a link to your thread to my previous post: My approach.kernel where we fought with you about OOP. Nostalgia... Two years have passed since then, man. This forum engine remembers our conversation))
Kovalev's tutorial is essentially a language reference, told sequentially: look, we have the for loop, it is used so and so, the while loop is used so and so, there are these data types, and there are these. But the main question: why all this and what to do with it? So fuck this "book". And arrays are never the basics. The basics are functions and the ability to work with them. All the rest is implementation details.
Peter, this textbook was already started last weekend. But thanks anyway for the link! It has already been added to my browser bookmarks.
Regards, Vladimir.
My kernel is an array, so it's a question of my survival as a programmer.)
I do. I agree that you have to know arrays. I'm just saying that it's not the array or the for loop that defines programming. What defines programming (and this is my personal opinion, I won't shout it) is the ability to decompose program elements, and then combine them into a common working scheme. This is what programming is all about. Filling these elements with cycles like for, arrays, and system function calls will come in time. But the skill of decomposition does not. It must be taught. That's why the appeal to "learn the basics" is of little effect. So, if a young man learns "the basics" he will become just another shit-coder like most of the programmers here. At least he will know the for or while loop and use it only in his code sheets - but he knows the basics!
You've become radical in your years of absence. )))) My kernel is an array, so it's a question of my survival as a programmer.) But, let's not get into a chorus. All the same, you should not think so much of Kovalev's textbook. It's a good, high-quality guide for beginners in the world of programming. Like an ABC book for children.
And that's what I don't like about Kovalev. He doesn't teach programming, he describes the syntax of the language and its base. It is like learning a foreign language from a dictionary. Even if you know 1,000 words, even 10,000, you still cannot speak it. It's a paradox.
I do. I agree that you have to know arrays. I'm just saying that it's not the array or the for loop that defines programming. What defines programming (and this is my personal opinion, I won't shout it) is the ability to decompose program elements, and then combine them into a common working scheme. This is what programming is all about. Filling these elements with cycles like for, arrays, and system function calls will come in time. But the skill of decomposition does not. It must be taught. That's why the appeal to "learn the basics" is of little effect. So, if a young man learns "the basics" he will become just another shit-coder like most of the programmers here. At least he will know the for or while loop and use it only in his code sheets - but he knows the basics!
Quite the opposite of your opinion!
Crucial in programming, is knowledge of the language, at a low level if possible!
For newbies just to clarify, low level is the syntax of the language without any code wrappers.
What about decomposition, as you put it, is an understanding of how flowcharts are composed.
That's why a programmer is valued not by philosophical fantasies, but by practical knowledge of the language.
How can you fantasize without the basics of the language? Where is the simple logic?
Equivalent to the language of an electronics engineer, which is the author of the topic, first apply voltages to the board, and then wonder why the board burned out ))
I do. I agree that you have to know arrays. I'm just saying that it's not the array or the for loop that defines programming. What defines programming (and this is my personal opinion, I won't shout it out) is the ability to decompose program elements, and then combine them into a common working scheme. This is what programming is all about. Filling these elements with cycles like for, arrays, and system function calls will come in time. But the skill of decomposition does not. It must be taught. That's why the appeal to "learn the basics" is of little effect. So, if a young man learns "the basics" he will become just another shit-coder like most of the programmers here. At least he will know the for or while loop and use it only in his code sheets - but he knows the basics, it's cool!
I don't seem to get it at all. I.e. code first and then its decomposition. Usually there is a purpose, a task definition, solutions, algorithms and only after that a code. And you shouldn't pay so much attention to the textbook. The beginning of correct programming up to the inludes and a couple of trading algorithms are well written there).
True, I didn't get it for the decomposition of program elements, followed by combining them into a general scheme.