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

211–219 of 219 posts

Re: A better build system for OCaml

#211

Post by andrepd »

rank0 wrote: post #208
andrepd wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Inneficient market spreads Well lowering market spreads is all about increasing the returns for capital, and incenctivising overfinancialisation. It's hardly curing cancer is it? At worst it's actively harmful if you believe that the current state of turbo-financialised capitalism has its drawbacks. > Network latency Not really sure what you're talking about but surely spending billions of dollars to bring rtt late…

We just have fundamentally different values. People like you are closeted dictators. I want liquidity, low spreads, price discovery. You seem to forget that “not delivering any value” is just like y’know according to you…

Thanks for not addressing any of my concrete points and instead just calling me "a dictator". Lunatic

EDIT: The funny part is even the exchanges and hft firms agree with me see PLP/speed bumps on exchanges like Eurex lol

Re: A better build system for OCaml

#212

Post by actionfromafar »

dgfitz wrote: post #201
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Make, in all its various implementations, is far more brittle than CMake. Ninja requires a meta-build tool like CMake.

Kevin, I must be missing something. CMake can generate a makefile, and this is the usual usecase. So a new language generating a makefile is even _more_ brittle than make, if your assertion is correct.

While I have no love lost for CMake at all, that's a bit like saying a compiler which generates assembler is brittle.

Re: A better build system for OCaml

#213

Post by n4r9 »

eru wrote: post #203
n4r9 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me, it's about whether that higher liquidity is really worth using top engineering and mathematical talent.

Well, that's what we have market price signal for to decide.

Do you mean that high salaries indicate a demand in the market? Not much argument there, although it is sometimes the case that large companies hire talent purely to starve competition. But what I'm really questioning is whether those high salaries translate to value to society.

Re: A better build system for OCaml

#214

Post by n4r9 »

eru wrote: post #117
udev4096 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

At one point, Jane Street had a lot of the effective altruists flock to them to 'earn to give'.

To be honest, even this is morally questionable. It makes superficial sense in that someone else will do the work if you don't. But this happening on a large scale is still a drain on talent that could hopefully be used for work of greater social value.

Re: A better build system for OCaml

#215

Post by rank0 »

andrepd wrote: post #211
rank0 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We just have fundamentally different values. People like you are closeted dictators. I want liquidity, low spreads, price discovery. You seem to forget that “not delivering any value” is just like y’know according to you…

Thanks for not addressing any of my concrete points and instead just calling me "a dictator". Lunatic EDIT: The funny part is even the exchanges and hft firms agree with me see PLP/speed bumps on exchanges like Eurex lol

lol I said "closeted dictator" for the record. But alrighty why don't we start over and see if we can both argue in good faith. I can certainly be a dick on the internet sometimes.

I honestly can't tell what your concrete points are. I come from the position that economies are naturally occurring phenomena which cannot be centrally planned or controlled. If people can find ways to profit off market inefficiencies, they should! The HFT/Quant firms make their arbitrage money (value for them) and all market participants in return see: (non-exhaustive list)

1. Better price discovery 2. Tighter spreads 3. Higher liquidity

Which is value for everyone else.

If your bar is that "all smart people should be working on curing cancer or andrepd-approved endevours" then almost nobody in the economy is providing value. Is my lowly SecEng job at $MEGACORP good enough? What about my buddy who writes firmware for toothbruhes? Are professional starcraft players wasting their talents?

> EDIT: The funny part is even the exchanges and hft firms agree with me see PLP/speed bumps on exchanges like Eurex lol

This debate has been going on for ages, and it's silly to pretend that it's been settled and everyone agrees with you.

Re: A better build system for OCaml

#216

Post by ljw1004 »

zokier wrote: post #5

kinda surprising that it still makes sense to develop your own new build system, and then do the migration to it, instead of adopting an off-the-shelf one like buck2 (or bazel/etc...). Not saying that these fancy build tools are easy to adopt, but compared to building your own? is there something remarkable that makes dune much different?

My team has a large ocaml codebase and a dual build system (buck2 and dune). The two have roughly similar: dune faster at the raw speed of invoking ocaml build tools, buck2 winning out when a lot of stuff has to be rebuilt and it uses distributed build system.

The major pain point is LSP integration, which has to be closely tied to the build system, since it's only by building that the LSP server can know a file's dependencies. Everything is all neatly available with dune. We've cobbled something together a bit with buck2 but it's not as nice.

Re: A better build system for OCaml

#217

Post by nvarsj »

andrepd wrote: post #207
nvarsj wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone that used to work in this world I find this opinion of “no value” pretty bizarre. There’s a lot of value in efficient markets with high liquidity and low fees, which companies like JS make possible.

Great, better return for capital and more over-financialisation of the economy. It's hardly curing cancer is it?

Capitalism is the best system we humans have come up with at this point in civilisation, for all its flaws. It’s largely responsible for the technological, medical, and quality of life advances in the last 150 years.

Please tell me a better system that would cure cancer. I don’t think it’s Leninism or its derivatives. You need a macro system that is rich enough to allow for significant investment in medical research.

Re: A better build system for OCaml

#218

Post by n4r9 »

rank0 wrote: post #215
andrepd wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for not addressing any of my concrete points and instead just calling me "a dictator". Lunatic EDIT: The funny part is even the exchanges and hft firms agree with me see PLP/speed bumps on exchanges like Eurex lol

lol I said "closeted dictator" for the record. But alrighty why don't we start over and see if we can both argue in good faith. I can certainly be a dick on the internet sometimes. I honestly can't tell what your concrete points are. I come from the position that economies are naturally occurring phenomena which cannot be centrally planned or controlled. If people can find ways to profit off market inefficiencies, th…

> I come from the position that economies are naturally occurring phenomena which cannot be centrally planned or controlled.

This is a challenge to untangle. It sounds like you're saying that there is no point trying to regulate, legislate or control what happens in the economy at all. But that sounds bonkers to me.

For starters, there are (and should definitely remain) absolute limits to business activities. We've moved on from Victorian-era child and slave labour for good reasons, even though such a situation was "naturally occurring" at the time. Moreover economic activity is dictated by cultural mores - if your service is morally reprehensible in some way then you won't get much business whatever your matgins are. Economies are inherently subject to the laws and customs of the agents.

Secondly, some regulation is pretty clearly beneficial. For example, there's a recurrent tendency for market power to concentrate in modern economies; we need robust anti-trust regulation to prevent consumers from getting ripped off and to prevent fragile supply chains. A well-conisdered balance of public and private provision supports the least well-off in society while allowing room for the fruits of individual flourishing.

Thirdly, we must consider what makes one economic system better than others. One way to measure this is to look at how efficiently it converts resources to social utility. I'm far from convinced that it's efficient to employ our brightest minds to build trading models with brief lifespans so that investors who are already well-off become slightly more so. It's worth investigating what regulations and incentives could put those minds towards things of greater value - solving climate change, cancer, sending humans into space etc... .

Re: A better build system for OCaml

#219

Post by rank0 »

n4r9 wrote: post #218
rank0 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lol I said "closeted dictator" for the record. But alrighty why don't we start over and see if we can both argue in good faith. I can certainly be a dick on the internet sometimes. I honestly can't tell what your concrete points are. I come from the position that economies are naturally occurring phenomena which cannot be centrally planned or controlled. If people can find ways to profit off market inefficiencies, th…

> I come from the position that economies are naturally occurring phenomena which cannot be centrally planned or controlled. This is a challenge to untangle. It sounds like you're saying that there is no point trying to regulate, legislate or control what happens in the economy at all. But that sounds bonkers to me. For starters, there are (and should definitely remain) absolute limits to business activities. We've m…

> This is a challenge to untangle. It sounds like you're saying that there is no point trying to regulate, legislate or control what happens in the economy at all. But that sounds bonkers to me.

I really do not appreciate this mischaracterization of my position. Focus on my actual words. I don't care about 'winning' this online argument. I take effort to engage because I am disturbed by the number of intelligent people who believe if only _THEY_ were in charge (or at least the right person), we would be able to fix all of society's problems.

> For starters, there are (and should definitely remain) absolute limits to business activities...

I agree with everything that follows. Government needs to be around to keep the peace. I want to be explicit: When I say "centrally planned/controlled economies" I am NOT talking about the general concept of regulation. If you are debating in good faith, this should be obvious. Look at all the history of failed states who tried to implement top-down control of their economies.

Also, YSK that not all regulators are government entities.

> Thirdly, we must consider what makes one economic system better than others. One way to measure this is to look at how efficiently it converts resources to social utility.

Never before in history has mankind been so prosperous. What system would you like to emulate? The US capitalist system is not perfect (and never will be)...but it blows all of its peers out of the water in terms of economic prosperity. Here's a couple data points: (Please read the technical definitions if you are truly interested in this subject)

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_c...

- https://www.numbeo.com/property-investment/rankings_by_count...

> I'm far from convinced that it's efficient to employ our brightest minds to build trading models...

This is where my "closeted dictator" quip comes from. Nobody is "allocating" these minds...they are acting on their own free will. Why should you or anyone else be the arbiter? What if individuals disagree with your beliefs? Space exploration is a great example of a debatable "worthy endeavor"

Post reply on HN