Ea's aren't likely to be a junk of indiors thrown together leading to a set and forget setting that will begin printing you cash as soon as they are installed. When correctly implemented, they could support your trading procedure. I have very good experience with EA's and wouldn't be profitable with no custom code I have written.Originally Posted by ;
Nevertheless the craftsmen continue to hone their abilities'in secret' to build better quality tools available which'don't really work'?
There is nothing that could ever be coded which will make money in gambling. So, if you are paying for it, you are a fool.
IMO all trading software should include the source code. For all you know you may be buying some trojan / virus or other nasty stuff in addition to a rubbish that will force you to lose money. Therefore, it's absolutely valid to crack trading software when the source is not provided.
Why do most of your article generalize a topic and are negative towards trading. Of course there may be some thing coded that can make you money in trading. If a ex4 document does not call any dll you can be sure the damage the program can do is only limited to you account. If you do not trust the author don't use the code or make it yourself. It's not like you look at the source code of each and every program you are using on a daily basis.
He has a website (check his profile page) where he sells products priced at up to $17,500. And yet he also promotes business practices that in his words are illegal. Not a great advertisement for his own products, LOL. And of course, at the minimum, he should be a member that is commercial.
Remember that all a pirate has to do is loe the product name/copyright notice (which ought to be evident in the string literals in the source code) and then change those, in order to re-badge a solution and sell it as his own.
Once I share indiors and EAs freely, I am not looking for money, gratitude, or a return favor. I had been brought up to feel means without any sort of expectation. Having said that, I really do get peeved by people who expect something for nothing. I see a large difference between an attitude of giving, and an attitude of taking.
I am often approached by FF associates to compose EAs and indiors. Of the few requests that I've resolved, I've never asked for any kind of payment. I don't want to disclose particulars of my situation, so I'll just say that EAs take a lot more time evaluation and to write than originally anticipated, and time is more significant to me personally than pocket money.
My main objection is when folks take code that's been offered publicly, and then decompile and re-badge it so that they can sell it as if it had been their own product. This is obvious theft, no matter the value of this software, or if the EA is profitable or not. To anybody who doubts that piracy occurs, see cja's post .
If a trader engages a commercial developer to code an EA, then (assuming the EA implements the trader's principles correctly) it's the trader's error when the EA is unprofitable. The developer ought to be compensated for his time and effort no matter.
I think re-using code for profit is wrong but sometimes you come across an indior that you would like to tweak a little or figure out what a few of the configurations are.
The drawback is that coders share less because they don't want their code used for profit or copied.
This might help:-
http://bfy.tw/3KaZ
That direct me to a dull movie, where a guy demoned decompiling 600 ex4.
He did not even pretend any machine pruning or formatting, and left code contend, with comments and formatting unchanged.
Yes if modify the exe file to mql5 is not harm when one use for his own purpose of use or give to others for sort of help.... But when one do for promoting purpose then its purely this the same time begging. . Different words aren't known by me. . Really they are beggars that are classified. Since here many treasure of knowledge is sharing via net by people that are known to unidentified people in the type of helping tendency.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote