<font face="verdana,sans-serif"><font face="verdana,sans-serif">Yes.</font><br></font><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Jay Sulzberger <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jays@panix.com" target="_blank">jays@panix.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im"><br>
<br>
On Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Jake McArthur <<a href="mailto:jake.mcarthur@gmail.com" target="_blank">jake.mcarthur@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I feel like this thread is kind of surreal. Knight Capital's mistake<br>
was to use imperative programming styles? An entire industry is<br>
suffering because they haven't universally applied category theory to<br>
software engineering and live systems? Am I just a victim of a small<br>
troll/joke?<br>
<br>
- Jake<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
ad application of category theory: No joke.<br>
<br>
Atul Gawande's book The Checklist Manifesto deals with some of<br>
this:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://us.macmillan.com/thechecklistmanifesto/AtulGawande" target="_blank">http://us.macmillan.com/<u></u>thechecklistmanifesto/<u></u>AtulGawande</a><br>
<br>
In related news, for every type t of Haskell is it the case that<br>
something called "_|_" is an object of the type?<br>
<br>
oo--JS.<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Jay Sulzberger <<a href="mailto:jays@panix.com" target="_blank">jays@panix.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
<br>
On Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Vasili I. Galchin <<a href="mailto:vigalchin@gmail.com" target="_blank">vigalchin@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hello Haskell Group,<br>
<br>
I work in mainstream software industry.<br>
<br>
I am going to make an assumption .... except for Jane Street<br>
Capital all/most "Wall Street" software is written in an imperative<br>
language.<br>
<br>
Assuming this why is Wall Street not awaken to the dangers. As I<br>
write, Knight Capital may not survive the weekend.<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Vasili<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
I believe this particular mild error was in part due to a failure<br>
to grasp and apply category theory. There are several systems here:<br>
<br>
1. The design of the code.<br>
<br>
2. The coding of the code.<br>
<br>
3. The testing of the code.<br>
<br>
4. The live running of the code.<br>
<br>
5. The watcher systems which watch the live running.<br>
<br>
If the newspaper reports are to be believed, the watcher systems,<br>
all of them, failed. Or there was not even one watcher system<br>
observing/correcting/halting at the time of running.<br>
<br>
Category theory suggests that all of these systems are worthy of<br>
study, and that these systems have inter-relations, which are<br>
just as worthy of study.<br>
<br>
oo--JS.<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
Haskell-Cafe mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org" target="_blank">Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe" target="_blank">http://www.haskell.org/<u></u>mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe</a><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
Haskell-Cafe mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org" target="_blank">Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe" target="_blank">http://www.haskell.org/<u></u>mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe</a><br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>