Expected bugs from a brand new EA

If I give a EA coder very specific and exact full details of a trading system how many bugs should someone expect from that coder. None, or a very small amount or quite a few. Your opinion appreciated!

Depends on what you call a bug.

The coder should be able to deliver a working EA that runs without "error", where error is a coding logic or syntax mistake.

However, if it doesn't perform as you expected, then this shouldn't be seen as a bug but part of system development.

I code my own EAs and its not unusual to run up many tens of versions before it performs as i originally expected, even after the bugs have been ironed out.

Now your problem is one step further removed in that you need to brief the coder and then deal with the result. So be patient and thorough in specifying what you are trying to do.

Best of luck.

In my experience people rarely supply very specific and exact full details of their requirements.
Coders are human and I think there are bound to be occasional code errors, but not too many.
Usually, when People tell me that there are errors in the code, it is due to misunderstandings with the specification. The coding works as I understood their instructions, but not as they expected.

By bugs I am referring to coding exactly like I explained the details of the system.

Lets say he does gets this part of trading system details 100% correct. What other bugs are you guys talking about that could occur beyond this?

Over the last 2 years some MetaQuotes updates have caused bugs due to the different ways some of the code is handled, you only have to compile an older EA to see for yourself. Clients that load EAs into the indicator folder or the wrong MT4 folder ( This has happened more than once to me ) and of course it is the coders fault and has to be a bug.
An EA that will not work when the Markets are closed is of course a serious bug and the best of all is "this EA does not make money it must have a bug in it" the reason the EA does not make money is because the coder has done something wrong and it has a bug in it of course it has nothing to do with the fact the system was not proven or tested before the EA was coded?
I have lost count of the number of times someone has mailed me and said " this not working the way I want it to work" and my reply has been " It may not be what you want but it is what you asked for" The best feature a coder can have is the ability to read the clients mind.

Bugs can be specific to indicator based EAs and Close Price EAs.
Indicators Repaint - ALL OF THEM!
Close price EAs are dependent on market execution but will enter at the first available price. Where you think you should have entered and when the actual trade kicks in can be a few pips away depending on spread and commissions.

And then, there is br0ker LAG. If and when your broker decides to allow a trade through, that's when you actually get a transaction, unless the EA is set to time out.

The faster the chart or time frame you are working with, and the shorter the distance you are working with, the greater the chances of seeing a lot of buggy looking trades.

Gaining a handle on the syntax of your triggering methodology can be very beneficial. Read through some code...looks all foreign and you never learned code?
LOOK AGAIN!

Some very basic commands can be learned and modified based on what you see to what actually happens in market. Get a grip on some of this and then you can pretty much take any open EA core and code in a little of your own personality.

Thanks Much for the insight gentlemen.

So true.

Exactly the reason I started working with code.

I was that same moron!

Not much different of a moron now, but at least I code my own shit!

Would any of you guys like to bid on a purely price based trading system EA. I can send the attachments giving the precise details of the EA.

Also will send the finished EA coding sent to me from the guy who did it originally. Will be a lot of things already done by him, but there will also be things that are not correct.

Steve