9 ms·

If I remember correctly they are also by far the biggest poster child for OCaml, right? Blub Paradox at play here?

yodsanklai 2y ago
They're more than a poster child, they made a lot of contributions to the ecosystem. OCaml would be different without them.
- cess11 2y ago
  I'm very much not a serious OCaml:er but when I've dabbled some in it I got the impression that their "standard library" is kind of the de facto standard library. https://github.com/janestreet/base https://github.com/janestreet/base
  - nobleach 2y ago
    They had Core. Base is their new attempt at sort of a "standard" lib. Not all OCaml-ers use JS libs though. There are some Batteries users out there. When I do Advent of Code, I almost always try to do it with OCaml's built in standard lib.
    - cess11 2y ago
      Ah, right, thanks.
DrBazza 2y ago
Back in the 90s/00s the CSFB quant team went with F#. Immutable and functional is reasonable choice. Just not popular. These days, starting or running a financial business with less popular languages is, well, less popular.
- cess11 2y ago
  F# came out in 2005, and was quite limited compared to the language it became from 2010 onwards.
  - DrBazza 2y ago
    Betas were certainly around 2002-03. Though thanks for the reminder that .NET was in a beta around 2000, so 90s is wrong (that's when I started work so my memory is sketchy that far back). CSFB was always a big MS shop and often trialled software before public release. https://fsharp.org/history/hopl-final/hopl-fsharp.pdf https://fsharp.org/history/hopl-final/hopl-fsharp.pdf
    - cess11 2y ago
      Ah, sure, I wouldn't know anything about pre-release stuff, I was busy being an unruly adolescent at the time.
    - bboreham 2y ago
      > CSFB was always a big MS shop Hey, it's not massively relevant to your story, but this cracked a smile for me. CSFB was a big Sun shop, up to and past the time they mounted a "SunSet" initiative around 1998. Scott McNealy came and gave talks to the engineers. In CSFP, the derivatives arm, where the quants worked, there was more of a push to get onto Excel, build a relationship with Microsoft, which included getting onto the "Cool" program which turned into .NET.
      - cess11 2y ago
        Interesting, thanks.
      - DrBazza 2y ago
        I think you know somewhat more about this than me ;-) I just remember the win2k source code, the Exchange team, the mass rollout of win2k boxes, and the .NET beta of course, as you mentioned.
mrweasel 2y ago
Might also be that Jane Street is to OCaml what WhatsApp was to Erlang. Many ascribed the success of the small team at WhatsApp to their tech-stack, Erlang and FreeBSD. The reality probably was that they had hired really smart people, and those people choose to use Erlang (because eJabberd), but they could have been just as successful using another language. Yes, Jane Street uses OCaml, they have no reason to stop using OCaml, but may very well have been just as successful using another language. It's hard to tell, when we don't know the full circumstances of why they went with OCaml initially.
- CharlieDigital 2y ago
  > but they could have been just as successful using another language. I remember reading about one founder that picked an obscure language because in doing so, it self-selected for more curious engineers who worked in the languages for fun rather than any other practical (re:job) reasons. His thesis is that finding one really good engineer in said language was 1 in 10 (10 interviews to find 1 really good engineer) whereas in more commonly used languages like Java, JavaScript, etc., it might be 1 in 100 [Edit] https://www.juxt.pro/blog/clojure-in-griffin/ https://www.juxt.pro/blog/clojure-in-griffin/ If we had picked Python, it’s very boring and reliable, and the same could be said of Java. But you’re picking the lowest common denominator. I would say high performers, and the best programmers are often people that will only work in niche languages. The problem is, there are good Java programmers, but there are also thousands of terrible Java programmers. If you pick the right niche, it’s easier to find the high-end talent. I think Paul Graham also made a very strong case that in a startup, you should be using the most powerful language you can, and that is Clojure. I interviewed with one YC startup that was using ReScript and ReasonML on the same principle (I asked the founder why he chose Reason).
  - strikelaserclaw 2y ago
    tons of successful companies (facebook) were founded on apps written in php (thought to be one of the lowest common denominator of the language world at one time).
yen223 2y ago
I've only ever heard of Jane Street because they're one of the few companies that did OCaml.
- citizen_friend 2y ago
  See. That’s how they have marketed to this demographic.
  - yen223 2y ago
    Architecting their entire tech stack around marketing towards the dozens of us who like unusual languages is certainly a strategy.
    - citizen_friend 2y ago
      Im sure they use many technologies. But we only have heard about one, because they told us.
coldtea 2y ago
In what way would the Blub paradox be at play? The paradox being: developer familiar with programming languages of level of power N doesn't recognize that languages of level N+ are better (more powerful expressively), only that N- are lesser.
citizen_friend 2y ago
It’s just developer marketing.

They're more than a poster child, they made a lot of contributions to the ecosystem. OCaml would be different without them.

cess11 2y ago
I'm very much not a serious OCaml:er but when I've dabbled some in it I got the impression that their "standard library" is kind of the de facto standard library. https://github.com/janestreet/base https://github.com/janestreet/base
- nobleach 2y ago
  They had Core. Base is their new attempt at sort of a "standard" lib. Not all OCaml-ers use JS libs though. There are some Batteries users out there. When I do Advent of Code, I almost always try to do it with OCaml's built in standard lib.
  - cess11 2y ago
    Ah, right, thanks.

DrBazza 2y ago

Back in the 90s/00s the CSFB quant team went with F#. Immutable and functional is reasonable choice. Just not popular. These days, starting or running a financial business with less popular languages is, well, less popular.

cess11 2y ago
F# came out in 2005, and was quite limited compared to the language it became from 2010 onwards.
- DrBazza 2y ago
  Betas were certainly around 2002-03. Though thanks for the reminder that .NET was in a beta around 2000, so 90s is wrong (that's when I started work so my memory is sketchy that far back). CSFB was always a big MS shop and often trialled software before public release. https://fsharp.org/history/hopl-final/hopl-fsharp.pdf https://fsharp.org/history/hopl-final/hopl-fsharp.pdf
  - cess11 2y ago
    Ah, sure, I wouldn't know anything about pre-release stuff, I was busy being an unruly adolescent at the time.
  - bboreham 2y ago
    > CSFB was always a big MS shop Hey, it's not massively relevant to your story, but this cracked a smile for me. CSFB was a big Sun shop, up to and past the time they mounted a "SunSet" initiative around 1998. Scott McNealy came and gave talks to the engineers. In CSFP, the derivatives arm, where the quants worked, there was more of a push to get onto Excel, build a relationship with Microsoft, which included getting onto the "Cool" program which turned into .NET.
    - cess11 2y ago
      Interesting, thanks.
    - DrBazza 2y ago
      I think you know somewhat more about this than me ;-) I just remember the win2k source code, the Exchange team, the mass rollout of win2k boxes, and the .NET beta of course, as you mentioned.

mrweasel 2y ago

Might also be that Jane Street is to OCaml what WhatsApp was to Erlang. Many ascribed the success of the small team at WhatsApp to their tech-stack, Erlang and FreeBSD. The reality probably was that they had hired really smart people, and those people choose to use Erlang (because eJabberd), but they could have been just as successful using another language. Yes, Jane Street uses OCaml, they have no reason to stop using OCaml, but may very well have been just as successful using another language. It's hard to tell, when we don't know the full circumstances of why they went with OCaml initially.

CharlieDigital 2y ago
> but they could have been just as successful using another language. I remember reading about one founder that picked an obscure language because in doing so, it self-selected for more curious engineers who worked in the languages for fun rather than any other practical (re:job) reasons. His thesis is that finding one really good engineer in said language was 1 in 10 (10 interviews to find 1 really good engineer) whereas in more commonly used languages like Java, JavaScript, etc., it might be 1 in 100 [Edit] https://www.juxt.pro/blog/clojure-in-griffin/ https://www.juxt.pro/blog/clojure-in-griffin/ If we had picked Python, it’s very boring and reliable, and the same could be said of Java. But you’re picking the lowest common denominator. I would say high performers, and the best programmers are often people that will only work in niche languages. The problem is, there are good Java programmers, but there are also thousands of terrible Java programmers. If you pick the right niche, it’s easier to find the high-end talent. I think Paul Graham also made a very strong case that in a startup, you should be using the most powerful language you can, and that is Clojure. I interviewed with one YC startup that was using ReScript and ReasonML on the same principle (I asked the founder why he chose Reason).
- strikelaserclaw 2y ago
  tons of successful companies (facebook) were founded on apps written in php (thought to be one of the lowest common denominator of the language world at one time).

yen223 2y ago

I've only ever heard of Jane Street because they're one of the few companies that did OCaml.

citizen_friend 2y ago
See. That’s how they have marketed to this demographic.
- yen223 2y ago
  Architecting their entire tech stack around marketing towards the dozens of us who like unusual languages is certainly a strategy.
  - citizen_friend 2y ago
    Im sure they use many technologies. But we only have heard about one, because they told us.

coldtea 2y ago

In what way would the Blub paradox be at play? The paradox being: developer familiar with programming languages of level of power N doesn't recognize that languages of level N+ are better (more powerful expressively), only that N- are lesser.

citizen_friend 2y ago

It’s just developer marketing.