Let me put my perspective on this. As it happens, I have developed one algorithmic, low latency trading system in Common Lisp / ANSI C, and then was asked to rewrite it in Java which I did. It actually traded on Warsaw Stock Exchange and was certified by WSE and was connected directly to it (no intervening software). Yes, it is possible to do really low latency in Java. My experience is my optimized Java code is abou…
Was a specialized real-time JVM used for this? I know real time isn't necessarily low latency, but it sounds like both are desired properties in this sort of situation.
Let me put my perspective on this. As it happens, I have developed one algorithmic, low latency trading system in Common Lisp / ANSI C, and then was asked to rewrite it in Java which I did. It actually traded on Warsaw Stock Exchange and was certified by WSE and was connected directly to it (no intervening software). Yes, it is possible to do really low latency in Java. My experience is my optimized Java code is abou…
Yeah. Languages like C# and Java offer you so much facilities and QOL features compared to C and C++, but in practice you have to give up most of those facilities in order to have it perform almost on par with lower level languages; Even then I think it's still acceptable since you still have the tooling, the facilitated debugging, etc. C# for example, is keeping up with this trend of using higher level languages to code things closer to the metal and with more memory management awareness, and offering more and more features to make that kind of code more performant and with less heap allocations, since C# 7.0 or so: Span for example is a revolution; But I use things like stackalloc, ref, fixed, Unsafe.CopyBlockUnaligned, &MemoryMarshal.GetReference etc, on a daily basis to get that extra performance where it matters;
^^This^^ is why you shouldn't call software developers "engineers" (disclaimer, am software developer). "No-one ever explicitly specified that the bridge shouldn't fall down and kill everyone who was on it at the time", said no engineer, ever.
I guess the key reason why software developers are not engineers is that there is no barrier to entry. If a necessary requirement to build a bridge is to hire a certified Civil Engineer who has undergone the necessary ethics and reliability training, then you have no choice but to pay up for that certification cost. You can't outsource that work to Eastern EU or Asia or hire another one willing to "hack" the bridge t…
If you wanna design a bridge...you need an engineering background. If you wanna design a car...you need an engineering background.
If you want to design the software that designs the bridge or the car...just need a 8 week bootcamp.
^^This^^ is why you shouldn't call software developers "engineers" (disclaimer, am software developer). "No-one ever explicitly specified that the bridge shouldn't fall down and kill everyone who was on it at the time", said no engineer, ever.
The Bridge analogy is often applied with flaws. Bridges are not free to build. Software essentially is. Here is a 1992 truth bomb rewind about it: https://www.developerdotstar.com/printable/mag/articles/reev... Basically engineers care about the quality of the code because they know that is the design. As soon as caring about codebase quality leaves the building, so will the quality of the product.
A civil engineer will put their stamp on the design of a bridge certifying that it will not fail. If it does fail, they will be held responsible and may lose their license to practice.
Software engineers often hide behind a contract saying they aren't responsible for anything.
I’ve seen this sentiment before and worked on both a “low latency Java” team and low latency C++ teams. I have some sympathy for the idea that the JVM is better since it means you won’t spend all your time chasing crash reports. The thing is, like another comment hinted at, is that this issue is generally more reflective of the environment you build in than the technology choice. Here’s a good talk on the reasons for…
Am I understanding correctly that those firms really really care about latency & have unlimited money & chose C++/JAVA with a standard off-the-shelve compiler + an OS and/or JVM?? If you'd really really care about latency and have the resources, wouldn't it be more effective to just go bare metal? Bare metal as in: no OS (talk to the hardware registers directly from code), possibly a custom compiler, use all the rele…
Well...the article says:
"If you have an unlimited amount of time and resources, the best solution for speed will be coded in FPGA," says Lawrey, referring to the language that directly codes field-programmable gate arrays. "If you still have a lot of time and resources and you want to create multiple exchange adaptors, you'll choose C++. - But if you want to engage with 20+ exchanges, to go to market quickly, and implement continuous performance tuning, you'll choose Java."
As an HFT developer myself I have to disagree. I worked for tier 1 banks that used both:java and cpp. The trend is moving towards quicker time to market and simpler implementations and replacing cpp with java. The cpp code bases I had to deal with were old, hard to maintain and easy to break. More often than not cpp was a pretty bad lock in as well. For example a big evil bank very well known here struggled for 3 yea…
I am afraid tier 1 banks aren't tier 1 in HFT though. Best HFTs are at "small" houses and your tier 1 bank experience isn't reflective of what they do.
It's well known that Goldman Sachs runs on SecDb (a homemade language) and JP Morgan runs on Python.
Banks are not competing on latency. It's never been part of their business model.
>It's not engineers responsibility to judge use case of the customer paying for the bridge. Actually yes, yes it is! I am a civil engineer and there's a standard of ethics and personal responsibility among engineers that is very, very high. When we graduate, most engineers participate in a ring ceremony. They get a funny, angled ring on their right pinky. It was originally made from the metal from a bridge that fell…
Is this the same in Europe? I doubt it and at least in Germany an engineer (even a software engineer) is someone who has studied a technical subject at university. It has nothing to do with liability here.
The exact protected term varies by country but there is an equivalent license in Europe. The EU has a "Eur Ing." title issued by FEANI which is roughly equivalent. As I understand it, Germany is a bit unique even for the EU. They still have some things which require a certification of sorts, but I don't know exactly how that works.
>It's not engineers responsibility to judge use case of the customer paying for the bridge. Actually yes, yes it is! I am a civil engineer and there's a standard of ethics and personal responsibility among engineers that is very, very high. When we graduate, most engineers participate in a ring ceremony. They get a funny, angled ring on their right pinky. It was originally made from the metal from a bridge that fell…
Found yer old union gatekeeper. Canadian engineer?
No, on both accounts, though the ring thing did originate in Canada.
Let me put my perspective on this. As it happens, I have developed one algorithmic, low latency trading system in Common Lisp / ANSI C, and then was asked to rewrite it in Java which I did. It actually traded on Warsaw Stock Exchange and was certified by WSE and was connected directly to it (no intervening software). Yes, it is possible to do really low latency in Java. My experience is my optimized Java code is abou…
I'm so happy this is the top comment. I'm saving this as it's well written and highly qualified. Thanks for sharing.
>It's not engineers responsibility to judge use case of the customer paying for the bridge. Actually yes, yes it is! I am a civil engineer and there's a standard of ethics and personal responsibility among engineers that is very, very high. When we graduate, most engineers participate in a ring ceremony. They get a funny, angled ring on their right pinky. It was originally made from the metal from a bridge that fell…
> I am a civil engineer and there's a standard of ethics and personal responsibility among engineers that is very, very high. And that is because no one can just go to a 6-month bootcamp and call themselves a Civil engineer. And even if they did, no one would hire them or the employer would go to jail. If we want Software Engineering to be as rigorous as other Engineering disciplines, we need to erect similar barrier…
Honestly, I think it would be sensible to have a software engineering licensure, though it shouldn't be required for all developers or development. I'd say something like an engineering stamp would be pretty reasonable for anything requiring encryption, financial data or transactions, health data, etc. And that's not to say that developers couldn't work on it, but just that a licensed software engineer should be in responsible charge of their work to ensure that it has been performed according to best practices and standards.