Hacker News Reader

Comment by msy | Hacker News Reader

You clearly haven't worked in finance. The traders get a percentage cut, as do the quants, it's only reasonable the hackers started asking where their cut was. However they are conflating programmers and quants here, the guy who puts together a FIX interface is a pretty replaceable cog, the guys who develop algorithms and their implementations are quite literally worth their weight in gold if they're good. The thing with the serious high-freq stuff is the line between implementation and algorithm really starts to blur, you need people who can write seriously fast code that's also bulletproof and can be turned around fast. You need a deep understand of how markets work, how feeds work, how to handle everything from fast market conditions to managing latency issues in multi-venue trade distribution setups.

View on HN

> You clearly haven't worked in finance.

Chase Manhattan bank, the Netherlands branch, formerly the Nederlandse Crediet bank, about 3 years from when I was 19 to when I was 21, both as a systems level programmer as well as an application programmer.

> However they are conflating programmers and quants here

Yes, but I didn't, I only spoke about the programmers. They do not come up with the models, they just lay the bricks.

The algorithm developer has a different role here and is more than likely not the same guy as the one that codes it up.

Please refrain from using the bricklayer image here. It is demeaning, silly and wrong. In order to implement a mathematical model, a programmer has to:

  a) Understand the model.

  b) Come up with a fast algorithm for the specification.

  c) Prove the algorithm correct.

  d) Make no mistakes implementing the algorithm.

All of this has nothing to do with bricklaying. Moreover, it's quite ironic that the geniuses who come up with the models often "forget" point c) for their own work.

Try putting up a brick wall before you class the comparison as demeaning.

You were the one who said just lay the bricks. This clearly implies that laying bricks is an inferior task compared to coming up with models.

EDIT:jacquesm, do you have a voting ring or why are your posts at 2 points (and mine at 0) the instant you post?

On the contrary, I think laying the bricks is plenty difficult in and of itself. But it's like wanting a share of the rent as a bricklayer of the apartment building that you are putting up.

I can do both (lay bricks and code), and I think there is a distinct parallel between laying bricks and writing code. Both use simple, re-usable building blocks to create very complex systems that need to be built to high standards if they are expected to stand the test of time.

The equivalent between the architecture and the algorithm designer is a similar one.

To demand a share of the cake just for laying the bricks tells me that you should not be doing work for hire but that you should be working as an independent contractor or as a starter-upper. You can't expect 'none of the risks and some of the gains' in a position like that.

A 'mere' programmer, just like a 'mere' bricklayer can be replaced by another programmer or bricklayer.

An architect or an algorithm designer contributes something uniquely theirs without which an endeavour might not happen at all.

Programmers are a rare profession in that they seem to think that somehow their contribution to a project is unique enough that they by the simple act of transcribing a specification to a working prototype have become co-owners, no other discipline suffers from this misconception.

If you want a slice of the action put up your money, but don't just put in your time, expect a paycheck and a slice of the cake if all you do is code, you are more than likely to be found 'expendable'.

While the comparison seems reasonable, it has one fatal flaw:

you are saying coders should be treated the same as bricklayers (salary); but are algorithm designers treated same as architects? I believe the former are paid percentage and later paid salary.

It seems financial sector do not follow the same rule as construction business.

Why should I have a voting ring? If the situation would have been reversed would it be ok with you if I accused you of having a voting ring? I don't think so.

If there is anybody on HN that has an aversion against voting rings it probably is me, and I wouldn't ever stoop so low as to cheat on something as silly as a conversation on a website (or anywhere else for that matter).

Whoever voted for me is free to step forward, I swear I haven't a clue who voted me up and you down.

edit: This sort of ticks me off by the way, within two days I first get this character calling me a troll: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1556756 , now I have a voting ring? Way to go).

edit2: and if I had a voting ring my posting http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1560732 would not be stuck at 3 votes ;)

It wasn't me, but if you up-/downvote because you agree/disagree with someone, it's hardly surprising that you'd upvote one guy's posts and downvote the other. Really, there's no need to stipulate a voting ring here. (And adding one point to a comment is pointless, anyway; you'd use a voting ring to get submissions to the front page.)

"Prove the algorithm correct" - gosh, if only that were true.

And if there are lots of programmers who can do that once the algorithm has been given them, then the position will be filled by lower bidders who are willing to take salaries and don't demand slices of the cake. It doesn't matter economically how much it feels like artistry if there are lots of people who can apply the same artistry and who all want the job. Supply and demand.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com