The Bull, the Bear, and the Python (Part 2)

A previous post described the SEC's plan to clarify certain kinds of trades by describing them using a computer program, written in Python. Responses to the SEC's request for comments are now online, including a response jointly submitted by USACM and SIGPLAN. My thanks to all the experts who volunteered to help us formulate a response and ensure it represented the views of the USACM and SIGPLAN membership.

I've been thinking about this, and something that should be taken into account regardless of language chosen is a version number for the language.

For example, the C# compiler has broken backwards compatibility with some subset of functionality at least three times. When speaking about what code gets executed, the source text is not enough. We need to know what version of the language - and thus canonical compiler for that language - we should be testing against. I suppose SML gets a pass. I've heard Microsoft has millions of tests for the C# compiler. And some of these tests are hard to specify using automated tools like PeX.
The response from USACM and SIGPLAN seems to be very affiliated and I described it why.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?