10 ms·

It would be cool to start seeing more of this from other companies. Also, I wonder if anyone has done an extensive cost-benefit analysis of using OCaml instead

by abalos 8y ago

It would be cool to start seeing more of this from other companies. Also, I wonder if anyone has done an extensive cost-benefit analysis of using OCaml instead of a more common language. It seems like the training and cost of always needing to build your own frameworks would be exceptionally high.

rwmj 8y ago
Why "exceptionally" high? The programmers you are hiring are (or should be!) bright, they learn new things fast, and OCaml is not very difficult to learn. At any software company you have to learn new things. Every company has its internal development stack and custom software, unless the company literally isn't a software company at all or is doing something so unoriginal and dull that you wouldn't want to work there.
- user5994461 8y ago
  >>> and [any language] is not very difficult to learn. I'm all for training and learning, but pretending that anything can be picked up quickly and easily is just wrong, especially in a trading environment. Any typo or bug is going to cost millions of dollars, it's very hostile to newcomers. They will be struggling enough to learn about finance and the company.
  - rwmj 8y ago
    > Any typo or bug is going to cost millions of dollars Good job they're using a language and other techniques which ensure that bugs are caught early, often at compile time.
    - dmitriid 8y ago
      yeah... no. only certain tupes of bugs. a compiler can’t catch a bug if you calculate interest rates incorrectly, for example.
      - steve_musk 8y ago
        That is what unit tests are for.
      - frou_dh 8y ago
        Minsky is on record as saying they have a maniacal bent for code review & code readability at Jane Street.
      - ayushgp 8y ago
        That needs to be written in unit tests and also needs to be code reviewed. Also such bugs can be brought into the system by experienced devs as well.
smt88 8y ago
Building your own libraries is often extremely costly and not cost effective. Building your own frameworks usually saves some time at the beginning, but the costs usually outweigh the benefits later on. Sorry to be pedantic, but the distinction between libraries and frameworks is important, in my opinion.
gaius 8y ago
It seems like the training and cost of always needing to build your own frameworks would be exceptionally high It is purely a matter of volume - are you doing enough business to make it worthwhile? The last company I worked for had in-house database, programming language, IDE for that language, version control system, job scheduler... At the time they started doing that there was nothing available that did what they needed, and even now, their stack does things that I'm not sure I've seen outside, tho' 10 years on it's less clear that it would be worth starting a project like that from scratch now. Remember, in business, there are no concepts of "cheap" or "expensive", there is only "worth it" or "not".
russian_bot 8y ago
they have a youtube video talking about using caml. listening to it now, very interesting!

by abalos 8y ago

rwmj 8y ago

Why "exceptionally" high? The programmers you are hiring are (or should be!) bright, they learn new things fast, and OCaml is not very difficult to learn. At any software company you have to learn new things. Every company has its internal development stack and custom software, unless the company literally isn't a software company at all or is doing something so unoriginal and dull that you wouldn't want to work there.

user5994461 8y ago
>>> and [any language] is not very difficult to learn. I'm all for training and learning, but pretending that anything can be picked up quickly and easily is just wrong, especially in a trading environment. Any typo or bug is going to cost millions of dollars, it's very hostile to newcomers. They will be struggling enough to learn about finance and the company.
- rwmj 8y ago
  > Any typo or bug is going to cost millions of dollars Good job they're using a language and other techniques which ensure that bugs are caught early, often at compile time.
  - dmitriid 8y ago
    yeah... no. only certain tupes of bugs. a compiler can’t catch a bug if you calculate interest rates incorrectly, for example.
    - steve_musk 8y ago
      That is what unit tests are for.
    - frou_dh 8y ago
      Minsky is on record as saying they have a maniacal bent for code review & code readability at Jane Street.
    - ayushgp 8y ago
      That needs to be written in unit tests and also needs to be code reviewed. Also such bugs can be brought into the system by experienced devs as well.

smt88 8y ago

Building your own libraries is often extremely costly and not cost effective. Building your own frameworks usually saves some time at the beginning, but the costs usually outweigh the benefits later on. Sorry to be pedantic, but the distinction between libraries and frameworks is important, in my opinion.

gaius 8y ago

It seems like the training and cost of always needing to build your own frameworks would be exceptionally high It is purely a matter of volume - are you doing enough business to make it worthwhile? The last company I worked for had in-house database, programming language, IDE for that language, version control system, job scheduler... At the time they started doing that there was nothing available that did what they needed, and even now, their stack does things that I'm not sure I've seen outside, tho' 10 years on it's less clear that it would be worth starting a project like that from scratch now. Remember, in business, there are no concepts of "cheap" or "expensive", there is only "worth it" or "not".

russian_bot 8y ago

they have a youtube video talking about using caml. listening to it now, very interesting!