Forums  > Software  > Morgan Stanley Hobbes language  
     
Page 1 of 1
Display using:  

jslade


Total Posts: 1195
Joined: Feb 2007
 
Posted: 2019-12-04 13:37
I found this being touted on Hacker News the other day.

https://github.com/Morgan-Stanley/hobbes

Its allegedly a successor technology to their APL+/K4 stack. I'm a bit dubious as to whether it is actually used, and would be grateful if someone who actually uses it were to chime in.

Why I am dubious:
1) it's Haskell -I've never seen a corporate project involving Haskell which wasn't a boondoggle trashfire. It is an interesting programming language, but it appears to attract more than its share of people who like the smell of their own farts, rather than serious engineers who wish to solve problems with a minimal headaches. Usually when it comes out of a corporation of MS size, it's some dudes screwing around rather than something which is actually used.
2) it uses comprehensions to process and subset data, which is generally a trashfire. There are also no obvious sorts on columns.
3) I have met MS people who use crap like OneTick and are looking for a replacement (granted this was a few years ago).

Why I am curious: obviously someone spent a lot of time on this, and a high level language you could build reliable ticker plant and data storage infrastructure out of is a cool idea.

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."

gmetric_Flow


Total Posts: 28
Joined: Oct 2016
 
Posted: 2019-12-04 15:28
@jslade Applause to item 1.

It looks like an eager Haskell with some binding with C++. I guess they wanted more "readability" than Q/APL/K4/Shakti.

To quote the Lambda the Ultimate:

The programming language is a variant of Haskell (HM type inference, algebraic data types, qualified types / type classes) with some adjustments to help reduce boilerplate and derive very efficient machine code.


jslade


Total Posts: 1195
Joined: Feb 2007
 
Posted: 2019-12-05 14:30
Yeah, it looks neat; I'm not an early adopter though, so I don't even want to invest the time in learning it well enough to test it unless it's being used.

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
Previous Thread :: Next Thread 
Page 1 of 1