5 ms·
> It's not like programmers are immune from making such errors. Too true. It wasn't that long ago that the programmers at The Knight Capital Group nearly sent
by jussij 14y ago
> It's not like programmers are immune from making such errors.
Too true. It wasn't that long ago that the programmers at The Knight Capital Group nearly sent the company broke with their $430 million programming glitch.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/knight-capital-group-inc/index.html?inline=nyt-org http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/knight...
- brazzy 14y agoExcept that wasn't a programming glitch, it was an operations glitch. They accidentally deployed a test trading partner for their real trading app to the real world.
- jussij 14y agoSo when I accidentally enter the wrong rate into the spread sheet everyone calls me an idiot and tells me I should leave the programming to people who know what they are doing. But when a programmer I accidentally promotes test code to production, it's just an accident. That is exactly the point the OP that I replied to was trying to make. When someone else fucks they are stupid and they don’t know what they are doing, but when the coders fuck up it's always someone else that is at fault. Please give me a break!
- bruceboughton 14y agoGiven that most spreadsheets only have one enrivonment (PROD), this class of error isn't likely. However, as the grandparent says, this means testing is equally unlikely.
- fr0sty 14y ago> They accidentally deployed a test trading partner for their real trading app to the real world. Do you have a citation for this? I saw a lot of speculation at the time but nothing that was ever corroborated.
- brazzy 14y agoI just found the Nanex analysis (http://www.nanex.net/aqck2/3525.html http://www.nanex.net/aqck2/3525.html ) very convincing.