[Haskell-cafe] Knight Capital debacle and software correctness

2012-08-04 Thread Vasili I. Galchin 
Hello Haskell Group,

I work in mainstream software industry.

I am going to make an assumption  except for Jane Street
Capital all/most "Wall Street" software is written in an imperative
language.

Assuming this why is Wall Street not awaken to the dangers. As I
write, Knight Capital may not survive the weekend.


Regards,

Vasili

___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Knight Capital debacle and software correctness

2012-08-04 Thread Ketil Malde 
"Vasili I. Galchin"  writes:

> I am going to make an assumption  except for Jane Street
> Capital all/most "Wall Street" software is written in an imperative
> language.

Tsuru Captial and Standard Chartered are also known to hire functional
programmers.

> Assuming this why is Wall Street not awaken to the dangers.

As an explanation, this is a bit simplistic, I think. But I think the
reason these companies are willing to use experimental technology (as
Haskell is considered to be in industry), is that the consequences of
error can be so high.  For most mainstream software, users have been
trained to accept unreliability, and/or are not willing to pay the
costs.

Other examples of expensive software faults is the Ariane 5 launch and
the Sleipner A oil rig (that collapsed and sunk when in tow due to a mistake
in FEA strength calculations).

The space (and defense) industry have a long history of working towards
software security, but I think they have focused more on the software
process than on technology - ADA notwithstanding.  And probably rightly
so, even though technology can help you write correct code, there is
still plenty of rope.

-k
-- 
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants

___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Knight Capital debacle and software correctness

2012-08-04 Thread Jay Sulzberger 



On Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Vasili I. Galchin  wrote:


Hello Haskell Group,

   I work in mainstream software industry.

   I am going to make an assumption  except for Jane Street
Capital all/most "Wall Street" software is written in an imperative
language.

   Assuming this why is Wall Street not awaken to the dangers. As I
write, Knight Capital may not survive the weekend.


Regards,

Vasili


I believe this particular mild error was in part due to a failure
to grasp and apply category theory.  There are several systems here:

1. The design of the code.

2. The coding of the code.

3. The testing of the code.

4. The live running of the code.

5. The watcher systems which watch the live running.

If the newspaper reports are to be believed, the watcher systems,
all of them, failed.  Or there was not even one watcher system
observing/correcting/halting at the time of running.

Category theory suggests that all of these systems are worthy of
study, and that these systems have inter-relations, which are
just as worthy of study.

oo--JS.

___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Knight Capital debacle and software correctness

2012-08-04 Thread Jake McArthur 
I feel like this thread is kind of surreal. Knight Capital's mistake
was to use imperative programming styles? An entire industry is
suffering because they haven't universally applied category theory to
software engineering and live systems? Am I just a victim of a small
troll/joke?

- Jake

On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Jay Sulzberger  wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Vasili I. Galchin  wrote:
>
>> Hello Haskell Group,
>>
>>I work in mainstream software industry.
>>
>>I am going to make an assumption  except for Jane Street
>> Capital all/most "Wall Street" software is written in an imperative
>> language.
>>
>>Assuming this why is Wall Street not awaken to the dangers. As I
>> write, Knight Capital may not survive the weekend.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Vasili
>
>
> I believe this particular mild error was in part due to a failure
> to grasp and apply category theory.  There are several systems here:
>
> 1. The design of the code.
>
> 2. The coding of the code.
>
> 3. The testing of the code.
>
> 4. The live running of the code.
>
> 5. The watcher systems which watch the live running.
>
> If the newspaper reports are to be believed, the watcher systems,
> all of them, failed.  Or there was not even one watcher system
> observing/correcting/halting at the time of running.
>
> Category theory suggests that all of these systems are worthy of
> study, and that these systems have inter-relations, which are
> just as worthy of study.
>
> oo--JS.
>
>
> ___
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Knight Capital debacle and software correctness

2012-08-04 Thread Jay Sulzberger 



On Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Jake McArthur  wrote:


I feel like this thread is kind of surreal. Knight Capital's mistake
was to use imperative programming styles? An entire industry is
suffering because they haven't universally applied category theory to
software engineering and live systems? Am I just a victim of a small
troll/joke?

- Jake


ad application of category theory: No joke.

Atul Gawande's book The Checklist Manifesto deals with some of
this:

  http://us.macmillan.com/thechecklistmanifesto/AtulGawande

In related news, for every type t of Haskell is it the case that
something called "_|_" is an object of the type?

oo--JS.




On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Jay Sulzberger  wrote:



On Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Vasili I. Galchin  wrote:


Hello Haskell Group,

   I work in mainstream software industry.

   I am going to make an assumption  except for Jane Street
Capital all/most "Wall Street" software is written in an imperative
language.

   Assuming this why is Wall Street not awaken to the dangers. As I
write, Knight Capital may not survive the weekend.


Regards,

Vasili



I believe this particular mild error was in part due to a failure
to grasp and apply category theory.  There are several systems here:

1. The design of the code.

2. The coding of the code.

3. The testing of the code.

4. The live running of the code.

5. The watcher systems which watch the live running.

If the newspaper reports are to be believed, the watcher systems,
all of them, failed.  Or there was not even one watcher system
observing/correcting/halting at the time of running.

Category theory suggests that all of these systems are worthy of
study, and that these systems have inter-relations, which are
just as worthy of study.

oo--JS.


___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe





___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Knight Capital debacle and software correctness

2012-08-04 Thread Clark Gaebel 
Yes.

On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Jay Sulzberger  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Jake McArthur  wrote:
>
>  I feel like this thread is kind of surreal. Knight Capital's mistake
>> was to use imperative programming styles? An entire industry is
>> suffering because they haven't universally applied category theory to
>> software engineering and live systems? Am I just a victim of a small
>> troll/joke?
>>
>> - Jake
>>
>
> ad application of category theory: No joke.
>
> Atul Gawande's book The Checklist Manifesto deals with some of
> this:
>
>   
> http://us.macmillan.com/**thechecklistmanifesto/**AtulGawande
>
> In related news, for every type t of Haskell is it the case that
> something called "_|_" is an object of the type?
>
> oo--JS.
>
>
>
>
>> On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Jay Sulzberger  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Vasili I. Galchin  wrote:
>>>
>>>  Hello Haskell Group,

I work in mainstream software industry.

I am going to make an assumption  except for Jane Street
 Capital all/most "Wall Street" software is written in an imperative
 language.

Assuming this why is Wall Street not awaken to the dangers. As I
 write, Knight Capital may not survive the weekend.


 Regards,

 Vasili

>>>
>>>
>>> I believe this particular mild error was in part due to a failure
>>> to grasp and apply category theory.  There are several systems here:
>>>
>>> 1. The design of the code.
>>>
>>> 2. The coding of the code.
>>>
>>> 3. The testing of the code.
>>>
>>> 4. The live running of the code.
>>>
>>> 5. The watcher systems which watch the live running.
>>>
>>> If the newspaper reports are to be believed, the watcher systems,
>>> all of them, failed.  Or there was not even one watcher system
>>> observing/correcting/halting at the time of running.
>>>
>>> Category theory suggests that all of these systems are worthy of
>>> study, and that these systems have inter-relations, which are
>>> just as worthy of study.
>>>
>>> oo--JS.
>>>
>>>
>>> __**_
>>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>>> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
>>> http://www.haskell.org/**mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> __**_
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/**mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
>
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Knight Capital debacle and software correctness

2012-08-04 Thread Jay Sulzberger 



On Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Clark Gaebel  wrote:


Yes.


Thank you!

Further, if you want:

  Let us have two types s and t.  Let _|_^s be the_|_ for type s,
  and let _|_^t be the _|_ for type t.

  For which famous equivalences of the Haskell System are these two
  _|_ objects equivalent?

oo--JS.




On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Jay Sulzberger  wrote:




On Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Jake McArthur  wrote:

 I feel like this thread is kind of surreal. Knight Capital's mistake

was to use imperative programming styles? An entire industry is
suffering because they haven't universally applied category theory to
software engineering and live systems? Am I just a victim of a small
troll/joke?

- Jake



ad application of category theory: No joke.

Atul Gawande's book The Checklist Manifesto deals with some of
this:

  
http://us.macmillan.com/**thechecklistmanifesto/**AtulGawande

In related news, for every type t of Haskell is it the case that
something called "_|_" is an object of the type?

oo--JS.





On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Jay Sulzberger  wrote:




On Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Vasili I. Galchin  wrote:

 Hello Haskell Group,


   I work in mainstream software industry.

   I am going to make an assumption  except for Jane Street
Capital all/most "Wall Street" software is written in an imperative
language.

   Assuming this why is Wall Street not awaken to the dangers. As I
write, Knight Capital may not survive the weekend.


Regards,

Vasili




I believe this particular mild error was in part due to a failure
to grasp and apply category theory.  There are several systems here:

1. The design of the code.

2. The coding of the code.

3. The testing of the code.

4. The live running of the code.

5. The watcher systems which watch the live running.

If the newspaper reports are to be believed, the watcher systems,
all of them, failed.  Or there was not even one watcher system
observing/correcting/halting at the time of running.

Category theory suggests that all of these systems are worthy of
study, and that these systems have inter-relations, which are
just as worthy of study.

oo--JS.


__**_
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/**mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe






__**_
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/**mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe






___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Knight Capital debacle and software correctness

2012-08-04 Thread Clark Gaebel 
As far as I know, you can't check "equivalence" of _|_. Since Haskell uses
_|_ to represent a nonterminating computation, this would be
synonymouswith solving the halting
problem.

On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Jay Sulzberger  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Clark Gaebel  wrote:
>
>  Yes.
>>
>
> Thank you!
>
> Further, if you want:
>
>   Let us have two types s and t.  Let _|_^s be the_|_ for type s,
>   and let _|_^t be the _|_ for type t.
>
>   For which famous equivalences of the Haskell System are these two
>   _|_ objects equivalent?
>
> oo--JS.
>
>
>
>> On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Jay Sulzberger  wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Jake McArthur  wrote:
>>>
>>>  I feel like this thread is kind of surreal. Knight Capital's mistake
>>>
 was to use imperative programming styles? An entire industry is
 suffering because they haven't universally applied category theory to
 software engineering and live systems? Am I just a victim of a small
 troll/joke?

 - Jake


>>> ad application of category theory: No joke.
>>>
>>> Atul Gawande's book The Checklist Manifesto deals with some of
>>> this:
>>>
>>>   
>>> http://us.macmillan.com/thechecklistmanifesto/AtulGawande
>>> 
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> In related news, for every type t of Haskell is it the case that
>>> something called "_|_" is an object of the type?
>>>
>>> oo--JS.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Jay Sulzberger  wrote:


>
> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Vasili I. Galchin  wrote:
>
>  Hello Haskell Group,
>
>>
>>I work in mainstream software industry.
>>
>>I am going to make an assumption  except for Jane Street
>> Capital all/most "Wall Street" software is written in an imperative
>> language.
>>
>>Assuming this why is Wall Street not awaken to the dangers. As I
>> write, Knight Capital may not survive the weekend.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Vasili
>>
>>
>
> I believe this particular mild error was in part due to a failure
> to grasp and apply category theory.  There are several systems here:
>
> 1. The design of the code.
>
> 2. The coding of the code.
>
> 3. The testing of the code.
>
> 4. The live running of the code.
>
> 5. The watcher systems which watch the live running.
>
> If the newspaper reports are to be believed, the watcher systems,
> all of them, failed.  Or there was not even one watcher system
> observing/correcting/halting at the time of running.
>
> Category theory suggests that all of these systems are worthy of
> study, and that these systems have inter-relations, which are
> just as worthy of study.
>
> oo--JS.
>
>
> ___
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
> <**http://www.haskell.org/**mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
> >
>
>


  ___
>>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>>> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
>>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>>> <**http://www.haskell.org/**mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> __**_
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/**mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
>
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Knight Capital debacle and software correctness

2012-08-04 Thread Jay Sulzberger 



On Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Clark Gaebel  wrote:


As far as I know, you can't check "equivalence" of _|_. Since Haskell uses
_|_ to represent a nonterminating computation, this would be
synonymouswith solving the halting
problem.


Ah, thanks.  I will attempt to think about this.

oo--JS.




On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Jay Sulzberger  wrote:




On Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Clark Gaebel  wrote:

 Yes.




Thank you!

Further, if you want:

  Let us have two types s and t.  Let _|_^s be the_|_ for type s,
  and let _|_^t be the _|_ for type t.

  For which famous equivalences of the Haskell System are these two
  _|_ objects equivalent?

oo--JS.




On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Jay Sulzberger  wrote:




On Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Jake McArthur  wrote:

 I feel like this thread is kind of surreal. Knight Capital's mistake


was to use imperative programming styles? An entire industry is
suffering because they haven't universally applied category theory to
software engineering and live systems? Am I just a victim of a small
troll/joke?

- Jake



ad application of category theory: No joke.

Atul Gawande's book The Checklist Manifesto deals with some of
this:

  
http://us.macmillan.com/thechecklistmanifesto/AtulGawande






In related news, for every type t of Haskell is it the case that
something called "_|_" is an object of the type?

oo--JS.




 On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Jay Sulzberger  wrote:





On Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Vasili I. Galchin  wrote:

 Hello Haskell Group,



   I work in mainstream software industry.

   I am going to make an assumption  except for Jane Street
Capital all/most "Wall Street" software is written in an imperative
language.

   Assuming this why is Wall Street not awaken to the dangers. As I
write, Knight Capital may not survive the weekend.


Regards,

Vasili




I believe this particular mild error was in part due to a failure
to grasp and apply category theory.  There are several systems here:

1. The design of the code.

2. The coding of the code.

3. The testing of the code.

4. The live running of the code.

5. The watcher systems which watch the live running.

If the newspaper reports are to be believed, the watcher systems,
all of them, failed.  Or there was not even one watcher system
observing/correcting/halting at the time of running.

Category theory suggests that all of these systems are worthy of
study, and that these systems have inter-relations, which are
just as worthy of study.

oo--JS.


___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
<**http://www.haskell.org/**mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe








 ___

Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
<**http://www.haskell.org/**mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe









__**_
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/**mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe






___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Knight Capital debacle and software correctness

2012-08-04 Thread Steve Severance 
Actually Haskell is used in a surprising number of trading groups. However
most people involved are contractually obligated to never talk about the
technology in use at their firm. We make no secret that we use Haskell as
our primary language in building trading systems. Other functional
languages, notably F#, have seen significant uptake as well.

As to whether Haskell should/must/could be used an a particular system much
of this choice (non-technology influences aside) is going to be bound by
speed. As Knight is a market maker I would expect that the stock choice for
rapidly evolving software is c++ on the intel compiler with a significant
amount of strategies running on ASIC and FPGA. The reason being is that
many strategies are relying on latency as a primary input to their success.

We have the advantage of not being latency bound and we place a great
amount of emphasis on correctness. We accept the fact that if we want to
run latency bound strategies most of our runtime stack would be useless. If
they had been using Haskell would they have still had whatever problem it
was? At this point completely unknown. However the real world is a messy
place and sometimes even haskell code has bugs.

Steve

On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 3:06 AM, Ketil Malde  wrote:

> "Vasili I. Galchin"  writes:
>
> > I am going to make an assumption  except for Jane Street
> > Capital all/most "Wall Street" software is written in an imperative
> > language.
>
> Tsuru Captial and Standard Chartered are also known to hire functional
> programmers.
>
> > Assuming this why is Wall Street not awaken to the dangers.
>
> As an explanation, this is a bit simplistic, I think. But I think the
> reason these companies are willing to use experimental technology (as
> Haskell is considered to be in industry), is that the consequences of
> error can be so high.  For most mainstream software, users have been
> trained to accept unreliability, and/or are not willing to pay the
> costs.
>
> Other examples of expensive software faults is the Ariane 5 launch and
> the Sleipner A oil rig (that collapsed and sunk when in tow due to a
> mistake
> in FEA strength calculations).
>
> The space (and defense) industry have a long history of working towards
> software security, but I think they have focused more on the software
> process than on technology - ADA notwithstanding.  And probably rightly
> so, even though technology can help you write correct code, there is
> still plenty of rope.
>
> -k
> --
> If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
>
> ___
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Knight Capital debacle and software correctness

2012-08-04 Thread Florian Weimer 
* Vasili I. Galchin:

> I am going to make an assumption  except for Jane Street
> Capital all/most "Wall Street" software is written in an imperative
> language.

I expect that most of it is written in Excel, which doesn't really
qualify as an imperative language.  High-frequency trading is likely
different, but that covers just a fraction of the software being used
for trading.

___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Knight Capital debacle and software correctness

2012-08-05 Thread Jon Fairbairn 
Jay Sulzberger  writes:

> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Clark Gaebel  wrote:
>
>> As far as I know, you can't check "equivalence" of _|_. Since Haskell uses
>> _|_ to represent a nonterminating computation, this would be
>> synonymouswith solving the halting
>> problem.
>
> Ah, thanks.  I will attempt to think about this.

Also, one way of looking at type systems says that all these
_|_s are the same (but as Clark says, there’s no way within
Haskell to compare them). Haskell mangles this a little by
including non-value things other than non-termination in its
types.

   — Jón


___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Knight Capital debacle and software correctness

2012-08-05 Thread Scott Michel 
>From some of the reports in the press, the problem was that the trades were
supposed to be spread out over several days or weeks, but were spread over
hours instead. So, if that were true, no type system would be of any help.

The US Navy had a similar problem on a propulsion control system back in
1995/96, where all consoles went into blue screens of death and the cruiser
in question had to be towed back to port from ~15 nautical miles off shore.
In the root cause analysis, it turned out that a particular form field
should never have been allowed to take on the value zero, which ended up
causing a NT kernel crash in a control system driver. Moreover, the bad
value was replicated across all control system machines, thereby crashing
the entire control system.

Job number one in a US Navy engineering department: keep the props
rotating. If the ship has propulsion, it can do things, like get out of the
way of danger.

Faults occur for a variety of reasons.


-scooter

On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Steve Severance
wrote:

> Actually Haskell is used in a surprising number of trading groups. However
> most people involved are contractually obligated to never talk about the
> technology in use at their firm. We make no secret that we use Haskell as
> our primary language in building trading systems. Other functional
> languages, notably F#, have seen significant uptake as well.
>
> As to whether Haskell should/must/could be used an a particular system
> much of this choice (non-technology influences aside) is going to be bound
> by speed. As Knight is a market maker I would expect that the stock choice
> for rapidly evolving software is c++ on the intel compiler with a
> significant amount of strategies running on ASIC and FPGA. The reason being
> is that many strategies are relying on latency as a primary input to their
> success.
>
> We have the advantage of not being latency bound and we place a great
> amount of emphasis on correctness. We accept the fact that if we want to
> run latency bound strategies most of our runtime stack would be useless. If
> they had been using Haskell would they have still had whatever problem it
> was? At this point completely unknown. However the real world is a messy
> place and sometimes even haskell code has bugs.
>
> Steve
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 3:06 AM, Ketil Malde  wrote:
>
>> "Vasili I. Galchin"  writes:
>>
>> > I am going to make an assumption  except for Jane Street
>> > Capital all/most "Wall Street" software is written in an imperative
>> > language.
>>
>> Tsuru Captial and Standard Chartered are also known to hire functional
>> programmers.
>>
>> > Assuming this why is Wall Street not awaken to the dangers.
>>
>> As an explanation, this is a bit simplistic, I think. But I think the
>> reason these companies are willing to use experimental technology (as
>> Haskell is considered to be in industry), is that the consequences of
>> error can be so high.  For most mainstream software, users have been
>> trained to accept unreliability, and/or are not willing to pay the
>> costs.
>>
>> Other examples of expensive software faults is the Ariane 5 launch and
>> the Sleipner A oil rig (that collapsed and sunk when in tow due to a
>> mistake
>> in FEA strength calculations).
>>
>> The space (and defense) industry have a long history of working towards
>> software security, but I think they have focused more on the software
>> process than on technology - ADA notwithstanding.  And probably rightly
>> so, even though technology can help you write correct code, there is
>> still plenty of rope.
>>
>> -k
>> --
>> If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
>>
>> ___
>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>>
>
> ___
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
>
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe