Tempting, but frankly speaking I did not even half of it, my consciousness faded somewhere around the Diagram of Precedents.
Maybe multiple repetition will give something.
In general, I hate professors for the fact that they present simple things in such complicated formulas that you can't understand them by the third sentence.
I hope that's just my problem. I stick to the rule that everything is simple.
Tempting, but frankly speaking I did not even half of it, my consciousness faded somewhere around the Diagram of Precedents.
Maybe multiple repetition will give something.
In general, I hate professors for the fact that they present simple things in such complicated formulas that you can't understand them by the third sentence.
I hope that's just my problem. I stick to the rule that everything is simple.
Urain, I think that at the end of the working week new material is probably difficult to digest.... I'm speaking for myself.
Then your article Trading Player based on history of trades is much more complicated, imho....
And then, who did you call a professor? :-))
Urain, I think that at the end of the work week new material is probably not easy to digest.... I judge by myself...
Then your article Trading Player based on history of trades is much more difficult, imho....
And then, who did you call a professor? :-))
I am not criticising, I am posting my impressions.
The article is really necessary, though I wish the metaphors were generally accepted or at least had clear images.
As for me, the phrase:
В состав строительных блоков входят: сущности (things - сами элементы модели), отношения (relationships - связывают сущности), диаграммы (diagrams - представления моделей UML).
it would be easier to perceive as:
В состав строительных блоков входят: объекты (things - сами элементы модели), связи (relationships - связывают объекты), диаграммы (diagrams - представления моделей UML).
well and so on in the text. it is very hard to read when the author generally accepted metaphors called his own, although I suspect that most of the text is borrowed, hence the complex terminology.
All of the above IMHO.
I'm not criticising, I'm posting my impressions.
The article is really necessary, though I wish the metaphors were generally accepted or at least had clear images.
Like, for me, the phrase:
it would be easier to perceive as:
well and so on in the text. it is very hard to read when the author generally accepted metaphors called his own, although I suspect that most of the text is borrowed, hence the complex terminology.
All of the above is IMHO.
Urain, and I'm not saying you're criticising.... and even if you were...
You are right about the terminology: it is somewhat different from the terminology a MQL5 programmer is used to. But it is used in UML. I didn't invent it. And the text is not borrowed. Cases where it is borrowed are marked as
Urain, and I'm not saying you're criticising..... and even if you are...
You are right about the terminology: it is a bit different from what MQL5 programmers are used to. But it is used in UML. I didn't invent it. And the text is not borrowed. The cases where it is borrowed are marked as
More on common metaphors. For example, entities and objects in UML are different things. So these are the nuances. But they are not critical, I think. Whoever is interested will figure it out :-))I will definitely figure it out :)
I'm in a crisis, critical errors when planning large programmes, and this article is just right.
I can't export the project as a picture.
Isn't this functionality disabled in the charovar version?
Sharovar version is no different from the commercial version :-)
So go ahead, it's very simple...
The char version is no different from the commercial version :-)
So go ahead, it's very simple....

- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
You agree to website policy and terms of use
New article How to Develop an Expert Advisor using UML Tools is published:
Author: Dennis Kirichenko