6 ms·

"... with Release 33-9117, the SEC is considering substitution of Python or another programming language for legal English as a basis for some of its regulation

by hakan 16y ago

"... with Release 33-9117, the SEC is considering substitution of Python or another programming language for legal English as a basis for some of its regulations." If this was actually implemented, it'd be incredible. No more ambiguity when you have to define all the parameters and outcomes explicitly!

die_sekte 16y ago
Knowing governments' actions, this is going to be a proprietary mix made out of APL and PHP—the worst of both worlds.
- stan_rogers 16y ago
  Don't be bad-mouthing APHeLP -- we don't need to be getting into a language holy war here. (Actually something as straightforward as a de-crufted PHP with APL's matrix handling would be a pretty wonderful language, when you think about it.)
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    Are you sure it's not apHELLp?
  - blasdel 16y ago
    Rule 34: http://www.impredicative.com/ur/ http://www.impredicative.com/ur/
sp332 16y ago
I'm sure someone will apply Gödel's incompleteness theorem to the Python syntax, and complain that they want to do something that isn't expressible in python (or any other language you choose).
- eru 16y ago
  You know that Gödel's incompleteness theorem concerns itself with provability and not with expressiveness?
  - sp332 16y ago
    Sure, I just meant hakan's optimism about eliminating ambiguity is misplaced.
ippisl 16y ago
If this works well, this might cause more legal fields to work with computer languages, enable more legal automation , and could be really disruptive to the legal profession.
ay 16y ago
The regulation will be very state-dependent, though. EDIT: oh, and that annoying halting problem...
- stcredzero 16y ago
  Is a monkey-patching friendly language really the best thing for this? (Asks the Smalltalk guy, whose language is just as monkey-patching friendly and is used in a lot of Financial apps.) Functional languages would be much better for this purpose.
  - csytan 16y ago
    Monkey patching (from what I've seen) is almost always the result of a poor programming, something which no language can be shielded from.
    - stcredzero 16y ago
      No, but in the right language, you can at least be shielded from the monkey-patching.
      - DrSprout 16y ago
        But you need trained programmers to use the right language. Also, Python is clearly a step up from English on a variety of metrics, including the reduction of the ability to monkey-patch.
        stcredzero 16y ago
        Functional languages can do even better, however.
    - lallysingh 16y ago
      Good languages actively fight off poor programming. Take ML or Haskell: if you didn't think about the problem well enough beforehand, it won't compile.
btilly 16y ago
No ambiguity? Suppose the deal goes out there, bonds are sold, but then real world inputs result in an endless loop. What happens to the money then?
- ay 16y ago
  One can still collect the functions that loop into lambdas and start passing those around ?
- wtn 16y ago
  Same thing could happen with human language legal copy.
  - btilly 16y ago
    Absolutely agreed. In fact all sorts of conflicts and ambiguities can easily get missed, as well as ambiguous terms such as the bond issuer at its discretion can rearrange payments. (Yes, this has happened. And money was diverted from top tranches to lower rated ones.) Furthermore the entire reverse engineering process is a lot of work for a very imperfect result. So this is definitely a big improvement. But my point remains that it is not perfect. There still are ambiguities.
omouse 16y ago
It'd be incredibly stupid. The language and some other programming languages don't even have proper standards written out or they change on the whims on their creators or community. Which version of Python will you use? 2.x or 3? Oh hey and will you use the map and filter functions or use generators instead or maybe you'll use a for-loop? What are the rules for that? Don't kid yourself, there's still a lot of room for ambiguity.
- ZachPruckowski 16y ago
  You may be able to obfuscate the code, but so long as the investor can easily test your model with values of their choice, it doesn't matter if you use a map or a for-loop.

by hakan 16y ago

die_sekte 16y ago

Knowing governments' actions, this is going to be a proprietary mix made out of APL and PHP—the worst of both worlds.

stan_rogers 16y ago
Don't be bad-mouthing APHeLP -- we don't need to be getting into a language holy war here. (Actually something as straightforward as a de-crufted PHP with APL's matrix handling would be a pretty wonderful language, when you think about it.)
- stcredzero 16y ago
  Are you sure it's not apHELLp?
- blasdel 16y ago
  Rule 34: http://www.impredicative.com/ur/ http://www.impredicative.com/ur/

sp332 16y ago

I'm sure someone will apply Gödel's incompleteness theorem to the Python syntax, and complain that they want to do something that isn't expressible in python (or any other language you choose).

eru 16y ago
You know that Gödel's incompleteness theorem concerns itself with provability and not with expressiveness?
- sp332 16y ago
  Sure, I just meant hakan's optimism about eliminating ambiguity is misplaced.

ippisl 16y ago

If this works well, this might cause more legal fields to work with computer languages, enable more legal automation , and could be really disruptive to the legal profession.

ay 16y ago

The regulation will be very state-dependent, though. EDIT: oh, and that annoying halting problem...

stcredzero 16y ago
Is a monkey-patching friendly language really the best thing for this? (Asks the Smalltalk guy, whose language is just as monkey-patching friendly and is used in a lot of Financial apps.) Functional languages would be much better for this purpose.
- csytan 16y ago
  Monkey patching (from what I've seen) is almost always the result of a poor programming, something which no language can be shielded from.
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    No, but in the right language, you can at least be shielded from the monkey-patching.
    - DrSprout 16y ago
      But you need trained programmers to use the right language. Also, Python is clearly a step up from English on a variety of metrics, including the reduction of the ability to monkey-patch.
      - stcredzero 16y ago
        Functional languages can do even better, however.
  - lallysingh 16y ago
    Good languages actively fight off poor programming. Take ML or Haskell: if you didn't think about the problem well enough beforehand, it won't compile.

btilly 16y ago

No ambiguity? Suppose the deal goes out there, bonds are sold, but then real world inputs result in an endless loop. What happens to the money then?

ay 16y ago
One can still collect the functions that loop into lambdas and start passing those around ?
wtn 16y ago
Same thing could happen with human language legal copy.
- btilly 16y ago
  Absolutely agreed. In fact all sorts of conflicts and ambiguities can easily get missed, as well as ambiguous terms such as the bond issuer at its discretion can rearrange payments. (Yes, this has happened. And money was diverted from top tranches to lower rated ones.) Furthermore the entire reverse engineering process is a lot of work for a very imperfect result. So this is definitely a big improvement. But my point remains that it is not perfect. There still are ambiguities.

omouse 16y ago

It'd be incredibly stupid. The language and some other programming languages don't even have proper standards written out or they change on the whims on their creators or community. Which version of Python will you use? 2.x or 3? Oh hey and will you use the map and filter functions or use generators instead or maybe you'll use a for-loop? What are the rules for that? Don't kid yourself, there's still a lot of room for ambiguity.

ZachPruckowski 16y ago
You may be able to obfuscate the code, but so long as the investor can easily test your model with values of their choice, it doesn't matter if you use a map or a for-loop.