Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A better build system for OCaml

blog.janestreet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 219 posts

Re: A better build system for OCaml

#81

Post by udev4096 »

n4r9 wrote: post #80
udev4096 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP should've been more specific. HFT firms, not any other finance companies, probably have a lot more exciting work due to the nature of reducing latency using all sorts of novel techniques. I wonder if they disable all the fancy exploit mitigation protection in linux kernel just for a tiny performance hit

Mother capitalism deems that our brightest young minds best serve humanity in two tasks. Keeping the public passively scrolling, and moving money at speed to make wealthy people more wealthy.

Absolutely. The moral aspect is certainly questionable. Although, I wouldn't say "all brightest minds" are going to neglect their moral concerns for getting rich

Re: A better build system for OCaml

#82

Post by imjonse »

emoII wrote: post #79
tombert wrote: post #4

I have to respect Jane Street for proving that HM-typed functional programming can be production-ready and extremely fast when given enough love. I still occasionally hear things about how the more academic-styled functional languages can't work in production, but Ocaml shows that it absolutely can work, even with high performance requirements.

What do you mean? Afaik the type system does not affect run time speed, it’s just static analysis

dynamic typing incurs runtime overhead

Re: A better build system for OCaml

#83

Post by lmm »

troad wrote: post #54
munificent wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing worse than a complex build system is a simple build system that can't build what you need to build. :(

>> Complexity has to live somewhere . If you are lucky, it lives in well-defined places. In code where you decided a bit of complexity should go, in documentation that supports the code, in training sessions for your engineers. You give it a place without trying to hide all of it. You create ways to manage it. You know where to go to meet it when you need it. If you're unlucky and you just tried to pretend complexity…

I think that's true up to a point, but it misses the distinction between accidental and essential complexity. Essential complexity has to go somewhere, accidental complexity doesn't, and most complexity in software is accidental.

And even when the complexity is essential, IMO it's better off not in the build system. I'll gladly accept more complex code for the sake of a simpler build (even though that theoretically means worse performance). Worst case if I need to do something complex at build time I'd rather model that as "the build system invokes a program that does something complex" than try to express the complex thing in some Turing Tarpit "configuration" language.

Re: A better build system for OCaml

#84

Post by globular-toast »

elzbardico wrote: post #58

Whenever I see posts from Janestreet blog I laugh inside thinking how working on the financial industry at Jane is probably more fun and rewarding than some 90% of the jobs in the so-called tech industry.

Maybe, but could you live with the fact that you're providing absolutely no value to the world? It always makes me sad when the greatest minds get gobbled up by these companies because they're creaming off the top of an enormously complex system they created.

Re: A better build system for OCaml

#85

Post by jrockway »

n4r9 wrote: post #80
udev4096 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP should've been more specific. HFT firms, not any other finance companies, probably have a lot more exciting work due to the nature of reducing latency using all sorts of novel techniques. I wonder if they disable all the fancy exploit mitigation protection in linux kernel just for a tiny performance hit

Mother capitalism deems that our brightest young minds best serve humanity in two tasks. Keeping the public passively scrolling, and moving money at speed to make wealthy people more wealthy.

There's also electronic medical records in there somewhere.

Re: A better build system for OCaml

#86

Post by globular-toast »

lmm wrote: post #83
troad wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Complexity has to live somewhere . If you are lucky, it lives in well-defined places. In code where you decided a bit of complexity should go, in documentation that supports the code, in training sessions for your engineers. You give it a place without trying to hide all of it. You create ways to manage it. You know where to go to meet it when you need it. If you're unlucky and you just tried to pretend complexity…

I think that's true up to a point, but it misses the distinction between accidental and essential complexity. Essential complexity has to go somewhere, accidental complexity doesn't, and most complexity in software is accidental. And even when the complexity is essential, IMO it's better off not in the build system. I'll gladly accept more complex code for the sake of a simpler build (even though that theoretically m…

Also the point of software engineering is to take the real complexity that actually exists and you can't get rid of and work out how to write simple code to deal with it. Good software architecture does not include complexity because there is complexity in the business. It manages the complexity with simple code.

The trouble is when people say "complex" you don't really know what they mean, though. They often just mean "difficult". Every programmer who wants to use that word needs to watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxdOUGdseq4

Re: A better build system for OCaml

#87

Post by db48x »

almostgotcaught wrote: post #72
dgfitz wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not in a glib response, no.

okay can you at least tell me how the architecture of https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project is "bad"?

That’s such an obnoxious tactic. It’s basically saying “Your point is invalid unless you can cut this Gordian Knot on the spur of the moment in an internet comment!”

Re: A better build system for OCaml

#88

Post by smabie »

globular-toast wrote: post #84
elzbardico wrote: post #58

Whenever I see posts from Janestreet blog I laugh inside thinking how working on the financial industry at Jane is probably more fun and rewarding than some 90% of the jobs in the so-called tech industry.

Maybe, but could you live with the fact that you're providing absolutely no value to the world? It always makes me sad when the greatest minds get gobbled up by these companies because they're creaming off the top of an enormously complex system they created.

People outside the industry just use that as cope because they making way less money.

"How do you live with yourself making high 6 fig / 7 figs a yr?"

Quite easily in fact.

Re: A better build system for OCaml

#89

Post by boxed »

globular-toast wrote: post #84
elzbardico wrote: post #58

Whenever I see posts from Janestreet blog I laugh inside thinking how working on the financial industry at Jane is probably more fun and rewarding than some 90% of the jobs in the so-called tech industry.

Maybe, but could you live with the fact that you're providing absolutely no value to the world? It always makes me sad when the greatest minds get gobbled up by these companies because they're creaming off the top of an enormously complex system they created.

One could argue that the OCaml work they do is skimming off the top of the fintech world and putting that money to better use :P

Re: A better build system for OCaml

#90

Post by deepsun »

n4r9 wrote: post #80
udev4096 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP should've been more specific. HFT firms, not any other finance companies, probably have a lot more exciting work due to the nature of reducing latency using all sorts of novel techniques. I wonder if they disable all the fancy exploit mitigation protection in linux kernel just for a tiny performance hit

Mother capitalism deems that our brightest young minds best serve humanity in two tasks. Keeping the public passively scrolling, and moving money at speed to make wealthy people more wealthy.

Some fraction of young minds, not all. I was happy to work at a small aerospace company with extreme concentration of brightest minds. Only because they loved the domain, and didn't mind a salary cut. What a joy and relief it was for me after FAANG!
Post reply on HN