http://jobview.monster.com/GetJob.aspx?JobID=70786548
http://jobview.monster.com/GetJob.aspx?JobID=70153611
http://jobview.monster.com/GetJob.aspx?JobID=67440522
http://jobview.monster.com/GetJob.aspx?JobID=70311202
"You will have previous experience of designing and building distributed, fault tolerant systems in a commercial environment. Experience of multi threading, socket programming, network programming and functional programming languages (Haskell, Ocaml, F#) will be an advantage."
"Experience with functional languages such as Haskell, Erlang, F#, Scheme, LISP, etc., are greatly appreciated."
Bit of a scattergun approach in the last example perhaps? I wonder who writes the job specs - I guess the bizerati analystas high on the latest marketing speak. I'm still confused about is the insistence on C++ with it's late binding and poor library coverage (compared to Java.) As illustrated by this graph from the paper below, C++ is slower than C - so why would you want to use it when speed is the ultimate criterion? Beats me.
An empirical comparison of C, C++, Java, Perl, TCL and REXX for search/string processingI'm also bemused at the use of C# - in light of the recent debacles at the LSE and TSE.
One wonders who is in charge of algo and program trading strategy. I do hope they realise the advantages of a monadic language are not without performance implications and that without stream fusion and massively multi-core processors (with FPUs) the performance gains they seek are going to be rather elusive. Then there's the data issue - you have to crack that particular nut - and here's a clue - the answer's not xml or any of its bloated siblings.
View Graeme Burnett's profile
1 comment:
Algo trading firms have always been leaders in the FP language herd. This is not much new, IMHO.
Post a Comment