4 ms·
What are you talking about?
by abathologist 1y ago
What are you talking about?
- wk_end 1y agoThe implication here, I think, is that "Jane Street has foolishly invested heavily into Ocaml and, rather than sensibly change course and migrate away, they continue to invest heavily into it in the hopes that one day the investment will pay off." Which is a ridiculous take: Jane Street has done extraordinarily well for themselves, possibly at least in part because of their investment in Ocaml, and any sort of migration would be a huge undertaking, and an absurd and unnecessary risk.
- abathologist 1y agoAh yeah, that is absurd, given how successful they have been, and how much they attribute that success to their technical decisions. People love to sulk in their parochial pits, I guess? Thanks for clarifying :)
- ng12 1y agoMaybe Jane Street succeeds because of the people who are good at finance in spite of the people who like OCaml.
- debugnik 1y agoI do think Jane Street fell into a sunk cost fallacy when they first stuck to OCaml. But after having invested further into an OCaml/OxCaml codebase, teams and tooling, switching tech stacks has lost most of its value. Also, their efforts benefit me greatly as an OCaml (now maybe OxCaml) user, so I'm glad they took that path.
- wk_end 1y agoI dunno. Jane Street started using OCaml back in 2002. Consider the world of programming languages back then: no Rust, of course...but, like Java wouldn't even have generics for another two years! At the time - and for a long time after - OCaml's offering of power/performance was pretty unbeatable. It arguably still is, but I think there's at least an argument these days. I'm not sure exactly when that argument became viable, but it would've been long-after Jane Street had already built up a pretty huge codebase and a pretty crack team of OCaml engineers.