How does one collect said evidence without using the language enough to see what it can and cannot do?
Example: Microsoft benchmarked C++ and Java and came up with C#.
Which answers your question.
And yet they failed to avoid these problems: http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=2425867How does one collect said evidence without using the language enough to see what it can and cannot do?
Example: Microsoft benchmarked C++ and Java and came up with C#.
Which answers your question.
Thanks for the link. Very nerdy stuff. IMO they are inconsequental. They are syntax-driven blemishes at most.And yet they failed to avoid these problems: http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=2425867How does one collect said evidence without using the language enough to see what it can and cannot do?
Example: Microsoft benchmarked C++ and Java and came up with C#.
Which answers your question.
That's probably true. And yet every syntax-driven blemish adds labor-hours to the development and bugs to the final code.Thanks for the link. Very nerdy stuff. IMO they are inconsequental. They are syntax-driven blemishes at most..And yet they failed to avoid these problems: http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=2425867How does one collect said evidence without using the language enough to see what it can and cannot do?
Example: Microsoft benchmarked C++ and Java and came up with C#.
Which answers your question.
Hmm... A pricing library is even less an example of evidence of the quality of a language because it may also be evidence of: 1) the programmer's failings to understand pricing; 1) the programmer's inexperience with the language; 3) the reader's understanding/requirements for a pricing library; 4) the programmer's inexperience with the language. At best, given chunk of code written by a domain expert with good knowledge of the language and reviewed by a domain expert with the same library requirements and with good knowledge of the language is a single data point.I do not consider this to be evidence. A better example would be a pricing library.
Top-Ten List of Software Risk Items
1. Personnel shortfalls
2. Unrealistics schedules and budgets
3. Developing the wrong software functions
4. Developing the wrong user interface
5. Gold plating
6. Continuing stream of requirement changes
7. Shortfalls in externally furnished components
8. Shortfalls in externally performed tasks
9. Real-time performance shortfalls
10. Straining computer-science capabilities
It's finally happening - after >30 years of pro use, 20 of which quite reluctantly, I am officially DONE with C/C++. Only maintenance from now on, everything new will be in@rustlang. THANKS Rust team for refining modern concepts into such a practical, elegant system. I love it.
Sheesh, I have a few projects to try it right away. What do you mean by "used" here? What's your definition of "never"?Looking into crystal balls ... Rust will never be used for computational finance.
I can see why Haskell and Scala are useful.Even Scala is used for computational finance, so I won't be surprised by anything at all. Haskell is used, with all its "academic" background. People don't care that much these days: if it works, it's good enough.
Crystall balls don't always work. It's a guesstimate.Sheesh, I have a few projects to try it right away. What do you mean by "used" here? What's your definition of "never"?Looking into crystal balls ... Rust will never be used for computational finance.
I am trying to get Visual Studio to be aware of Rust projects. Any ideas?For what its worth I've put some pricing libraries out on crates.io:
https://crates.io/crates/hull_white
https://crates.io/crates/fang_oost_option
https://crates.io/crates/carr_madan
https://crates.io/crates/binomial_tree
And I've created a basic app using rust as the backend:
https://github.com/phillyfan1138/option_price_faas
http://phillyfan1138.github.io/option_dashboard_mobile