SERVING THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE COMMUNITY

 
User avatar
Cuchulainn
Topic Author
Posts: 60246
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 7:38 am
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

General Remarks and so on

January 6th, 2012, 10:07 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: rmaxYes.So: We have a process. If someone wants a new Sandbox area, they post it on the forum what they want to do. It is agreed and then they can build.Agreed?Yes. So, Thijs will help us up and running?Dev -> Sandbox -> multicast new code to all and sundry -> feedback -> owner updates code -> Sandboxand the whole virtuous cycle story starts all over again.What do you think?
 
User avatar
Cuchulainn
Topic Author
Posts: 60246
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 7:38 am
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

General Remarks and so on

January 6th, 2012, 10:11 am

Ok, for MC 102,.. if you change the interface of design then do you want to solve it this wayDD interface is same as 101 (Boost function)* it gets a new project in the sandbox to guarantee the non breaking of 101 users.DD indeed, all things being equal. However. if you want this you will need a dev version and a prod version, and we have not reached this phase yet.* the 101 stays parallel,DD yes, we destroy no previous code, e.g. code mining
Last edited by Cuchulainn on January 5th, 2012, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Cuchulainn
Topic Author
Posts: 60246
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 7:38 am
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

General Remarks and so on

January 6th, 2012, 10:42 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: outrunDD, can you give two names for your projects? (one per project)Ala "The <design princible> FDM C++ Framework" or something along those lines, something that gives it a unique name in a bazaar. Can also be " FunkY_Masher_302" but that's less descriptiveMaybe a namespace classification like in Boost? Let's think *hard* on this for a day or so?
 
User avatar
Polter
Posts: 2526
Joined: April 29th, 2008, 4:55 pm

General Remarks and so on

January 6th, 2012, 6:49 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: outrunOk, for MC 102,.. if you change the interface of design then do you want to solve it this way* it gets a new project in the sandbox to guarantee the non breaking of 101 users.* the 101 stays parallel+1Parallel Implementations is the way John Carmack endorses.That being said, I don't think there's much of a reason to worry about backward compatibility or interface stability of the code in the sandbox -- we're still at the early prototyping stage (that's what the sandbox is for -- an unreviewed code), once we move beyond that stage, we may consider those requirements when reviewing for the acceptance into the "official" libraries, but everything seems to indicate we still have a long way to go to reach the stage when it'll make sense to worry about that and the submission process itself. EDIT: to further elaborate upon what I mean -- in the sense as delineated in the quote below, I think we're only having experimental implementations at this stage, the reference implementation is something that might (or might not) evolve in the long-run (I'm afraid that means more than a couple weeks in our case):QuoteThere are two general classes of parallel implementations I work with: The reference implementation, which is much smaller and simpler, but will be maintained continuously, and the experimental implementation, where you expect one version to "win" and consign the other implementation to source control in a couple weeks after you have some confidence that it is both fully functional and a real improvement.It is completely reasonable to violate some generally good coding rules while building an experimental implementation -- copy, paste, and find-replace rename is actually a good way to start. Code fearlessly on the copy, while the original remains fully functional and unmolested. It is often tempting to shortcut this by passing in some kind of option flag to existing code, rather than enabling a full parallel implementation. It is a grey area, but I have been tending to find the extra path complexity with the flag approach often leads to messing up both versions as you work, and you usually compromise both implementations to some degree. Some extra reading to ponder upon:http://lcsd05.cs.tamu.edu/papers/ramey. ... er-review/
Last edited by Polter on January 5th, 2012, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Polter
Posts: 2526
Joined: April 29th, 2008, 4:55 pm

General Remarks and so on

January 9th, 2012, 5:32 pm

outrun, how about something more categorized, like:http://search.cpan.org/http://cran.r-pr ... web/views/ -- and subcategories http://cran.r-project.org/web/views/Finance.html (we might of course choose a different delineation of what is a category and subcategory(ies) of QFCL).I even think that CPAN and CRAN reflect best the spirit and organization that we desire of QFCL.
ABOUT WILMOTT

PW by JB

Wilmott.com has been "Serving the Quantitative Finance Community" since 2001. Continued...


Twitter LinkedIn Instagram

JOBS BOARD

JOBS BOARD

Looking for a quant job, risk, algo trading,...? Browse jobs here...


GZIP: On