| comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com | Google Groups |  |
| Unsure why you received this message? You previously subscribed to digests from this group, but we haven't been sending them for a while. We fixed that, but if you don't want to get these messages, send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
- MSVC++ anonymous union in struct -- compile-time initialization of non-first member - 3 Updates
- High Frequency Trading/C++ - 9 Updates
- Visual C++ Version 6 (Visual Studio 98) - 13 Updates
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 14 05:00PM -0700 On Saturday, August 30, 2014 2:47:48 PM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > My post was finally approved through moderation: > https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/comp.std.c++/1henU64d9is > We'll see what the true reasoning is... There has been no response in several days. In addition, I have posted a follow-up asking that this limitation be removed, but it has not been received through moderation, nor has an explanation been given as to why it has not been received through moderation. Any thoughts as to what's going on there? Thank you in advance. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 15 05:58PM +0100 On 15/09/2014 01:00, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > why it has not been received through moderation. > Any thoughts as to what's going on there? > Thank you in advance. The problem is that you are using VC++ 6.0 and nobody in this newsgroup cares for or will answer questions related to that piece of shit compiler. Again: VC++ 6.0 IS NOT A C++ COMPILER IT IS A VC++ 6.0 COMPILER. /Flibble |
| Bo Persson <bop@gmb.dk>: Sep 15 08:11PM +0200 Rick C. Hodgin skrev den 2014-09-15 02:00: > received through moderation, nor has an explanation been given as to > why it has not been received through moderation. > Any thoughts as to what's going on there? There are a limited number of moderators. Sometimes it just happens that all of them are busy doing other things for a couple of days. To address you actual question of why the C++ standard says: "When a union is initialized with a brace-enclosed initializer, the braces shall only contain an initializer-clause for the first non-static data member of the union." (§8.5.1/15) This refers to the C standard that says (C99, §6.7.8/17): "[...] subobjects of the current object are initialized in order according to the type of the current object: array [...], structure [...], and the first named member of a union." So when C++ has braced initializers for C-like objects, the rules are the same as in C. Seems rather logical. Bo Persson |
| Robert Hutchings <rm.hutchings@gmail.com>: Sep 14 10:17AM -0700 What C++ skills are most relevant to HFT? I think multithreading and ultra-low-latency would be at the top. Any others? |
| Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: Sep 14 02:52PM -0500 Robert Hutchings <rm.hutchings@gmail.com> wrote in > What C++ skills are most relevant to HFT? I think multithreading and > ultra-low-latency would be at the top. Any others? These are not exactly "C++ skills". And from the first google hits I read: "many UHFT firms have moved towards custom hardware" so I guess THDL++ (http://visualhdl.sysprogs.org/thdlpp/) would be the closest connection with C++. Honestly, if you need to ask then you probably aren't qualified for the job anyway ;) Cheers Paavo |
| Robert Hutchings <rm.hutchings@gmail.com>: Sep 15 07:01AM -0700 Was it really necessary to be so condescending? |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Sep 15 04:56PM +0200 On 15/09/14 16:01, Robert Hutchings wrote: > Was it really necessary to be so condescending? High frequency trading is seriously specialised development, with a mix of hardware, software, networking, economics, and other fields. Asking in a group like this for the "most relevant C++ skills" is a bit like asking for what painting skills are most relevant to designing jumbo jets. So Paavo was simply trying to make it clear to you that you are not ready to be writing HFT trading code in C++. (Of course, that doesn't mean you could not get a job working for an HFT company, and learning as you go along.) |
| Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>: Sep 15 04:00PM On Mon, 2014-09-15, David Brown wrote: > asking for what painting skills are most relevant to designing jumbo jets. > So Paavo was simply trying to make it clear to you that you are not > ready to be writing HFT trading code in C++. I read the original question as more of "I'm curious what role C++ has in HFT" than "tell me how to make lots of money doing HTF in C++". From that angle, Paavo's answer could have been more ... sensitive, perhaps. Despite the smiley. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o . |
| Robert Hutchings <rm.hutchings@gmail.com>: Sep 15 09:05AM -0700 Wow. I daresay I won't be posting in this group of super-experts again. Please pardon my ignorance and stupidity. I will take 100 lashes later today... |
| scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): Sep 15 04:51PM >From that angle, Paavo's answer could have been more ... sensitive, >perhaps. Despite the smiley. >/Jorgen There really isn't any tie between HFT and C++. C++ is a tool, and as a tool, it can be applied to many problems. Modern HFT relies more on hardware than software (e.g. low-latency interconnects to the exchanges, such that most brokerages and investment banks colocate equipment in the exchange, and the fiber links between the exchange systems and colocated hosts are intentionally designed to be equal in length (so that one colocated host doesn't get a feed a few nanoseconds ahead of another)). Consider, for example, criteria for interconnect links: Transport Technology Switch/Endpoint Encoding/Decoding/Equalization latency -------------------- --------------------------- 10G (SFP to Fibre) 300ns 10G-BaseT (Copper) 2500 ns That 2200ns is circa 6000 instructions on a 3Ghz processor, depending on IPC. Can give a trader quite an advantage, if for a competitor every switch hop/host ingress or egress adds 2200ns latency. The ratio is roughly the same for 40G and 100G links. Note that this eliminates TCP as a viable transport - most use UDP and take care to ensure that there aren't dropped packets. Algorithmic processing is often offloaded to custom coprocessors (generally Field-Programmable Gate Arrays, which are programmed in Verilog/VHDL). One should be comfortable with B-S[*] and derivitives to operate in such environments. [*] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black%E2%80%93Scholes_model Given the low-latency requirements, C++ may not be the best choice anyway. |
| Victor Bazarov <v.bazarov@comcast.invalid>: Sep 15 02:01PM -0400 On 9/15/2014 12:00 PM, Jorgen Grahn wrote: > [..] Paavo's answer could have been more ... sensitive, > perhaps. Despite the smiley. Honestly, how is one going to make it in the cut-throat world of modern automated trading if he can't even take a newsgroup jab, especially one accompanied by a smiley?.. "Down with newsgroup bullying!!!" -- I can just see CNN spending hours a day chewing fat on that... <sigh> V -- I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask |
| Victor Bazarov <v.bazarov@comcast.invalid>: Sep 15 02:02PM -0400 On 9/15/2014 12:05 PM, Robert Hutchings wrote: > Wow. I daresay I won't be posting in this group of super-experts again. [..] Your choice, Robert. V -- I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask |
| Bo Persson <bop@gmb.dk>: Sep 14 06:57PM +0200 Mr Flibble wrote 2014-09-14 16:10: > Your god is the god of Abraham mate and evolution is proof that that > particular god does not exist. No, it doesn't prove anything. Evolution works just fine without the presence of any deities, but they could very well exist anyway. Bo Persson |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 14 09:59AM -0700 On Sunday, September 14, 2014 12:30:15 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote: > > A person must be willing to hear the truth ... to hear the truth. > I thought you relied on faith? Faith is belief without evidence so how > can you know what you believe is true? Faith is not belief without evidence. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." http://biblehub.com/hebrews/11-1.htm Evidence comes through faith. It is the spiritual (invisible) part of our existence which is manifested unto us through faith, that even though we cannot see it with our eyes, through faith we know it is there. > If your position is the truth then there must be mountains of evidence > backing it up mate. How about you give me just ONE piece of evidence > that shows that your god exists? I answer you in this: Give me just ONE piece of evidence that love exists. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 14 08:04PM +0100 On 14/09/2014 17:59, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: >> can you know what you believe is true? > Faith is not belief without evidence. "Faith is the substance of things > hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Yes faith is belief without evidence. > our existence which is manifested unto us through faith, that even > though we cannot see it with our eyes, through faith we know it is > there. Give me one piece of evidence showing that the "spiritual (invisible) part of out existence" exists. How do you know it is there without evidence? >> backing it up mate. How about you give me just ONE piece of evidence >> that shows that your god exists? > I answer you in this: Give me just ONE piece of evidence that love exists. I asked first mate (ignoring your strawman); again give me ONE piece of evidence showing that your god exists. /Flibble |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 14 08:07PM +0100 On 14/09/2014 17:57, Bo Persson wrote: >> particular god does not exist. > No, it doesn't prove anything. Evolution works just fine without the > presence of any deities, but they could very well exist anyway. What? I never said evolution works just fine with the presence of dieties. Get a clue mate. Evolution is proof that there was no first human called Adam and therefore everyone descended from Adam (as stated in the bible) cannot have existed either which includes Abraham and Moses. No Abraham: no Abrahamic god. /Flibble |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Sep 14 10:53PM +0200 On 14/09/14 15:06, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > nature. I found things upon the One who created all things. > Best regards, > Rick C. Hodgin If you wanted anyone to take you even slightly seriously, then you would say "evolution is such a fantastic thing that I view evolution, together with the biological basis on which it works, as an example of the power of God and His creation". Why some so-called "believers" have such little faith in their god, and fight against some of the most amazing things found in the universe, is beyond me. If I were "god", I would find it insulting the way you deride one of the greatest marvels around. I am a scientist - I understand that evolution is inevitable from mathematical laws and a few basic premises (it is not dependent on biology or bio-chemistry). But still I find it fascinating - and if there were anything that were to make me think that there must be some "intelligence" at hand in making the universe, then it would be evolution. |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Sep 14 10:56PM +0200 On 14/09/14 18:59, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: >> backing it up mate. How about you give me just ONE piece of evidence >> that shows that your god exists? > I answer you in this: Give me just ONE piece of evidence that love exists. Have you ever done something that is arguably stupid, or given up something important to you, because of love? If so, then that is your evidence that love exists - and if not, then you should start concentrating on your relationships with your fellow humans rather than your god. |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Sep 14 11:04PM +0200 On 14/09/14 21:07, Mr Flibble wrote: > therefore everyone descended from Adam (as stated in the bible) cannot > have existed either which includes Abraham and Moses. No Abraham: no > Abrahamic god. Few Christians actually take the beginning of Genesis literally - they know it is just a fable to explain something the authors didn't understand at the time, and to make it clear that God has cared about them from the start. The idea of actually considering that the world was made in 6 days, or that there was a first man called Adam, is a very modern concept - it came around the time when science started explaining the early world (with evolution, fossils, geology, etc.) and people started thinking about pre-history. Scientists (most of them devote Christians) gave scientific answers, and a few ignoramuses invented Creationism as a sort of knee-jerk reaction. Most Christians (and most believers in other religions, at least in educated parts of the world) are happy to let science explain some things in the world, and religion explain other things - with parts in the middle that no one can explain. Unfortunately, there are some who believe that their god gave them a brain as some sort of temptation, and deny themselves the use of it. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 14 02:05PM -0700 On Sunday, September 14, 2014 3:04:48 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote: > > I answer you in this: Give me just ONE piece of evidence that love exists. > I asked first mate (ignoring your strawman); again give me ONE piece of > evidence showing that your god exists. My response (asking you to prove that love exists) answers your question. http://biblehub.com/romans/1-20.htm "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" You must be willing to hear the truth ... to hear the truth, Flibble. You are unwilling to hear the truth, which is why it will always elude you. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 14 02:08PM -0700 On Sunday, September 14, 2014 5:04:49 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote: > Few Christians actually take the beginning of Genesis literally I do. And I testify unto you that God is alive, and His story of creation is given to us for edification, for learning, that we may know our Creator. I further testify that the reason you can't see this is because you are unwilling in your inmost man to hear the truth. As such, you will never come to understand until you humble yourself, and are willing to hear the truth. On the day you do, that truth will make you free. I love you, David. But God loves you more. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 14 10:18PM +0100 On 14/09/2014 22:05, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" > You must be willing to hear the truth ... to hear the truth, Flibble. You > are unwilling to hear the truth, which is why it will always elude you. Mate, get a clue. Mate, fuck off. /Flibble |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Sep 15 12:02AM +0200 On 14/09/14 23:08, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: >> Few Christians actually take the beginning of Genesis literally > I do. And I testify unto you that God is alive, and His story of creation > is given to us for edification, for learning, that we may know our Creator. It's a /story/. If you believe the Bible to be written (and the books selected) with divine inspiration, then it's fair enough that you believe the stories in Genesis to be for education about god. That doesn't mean it was ever meant to be taken literally. Jesus told lots of stories to help people understand his message, and the importance of love and mercy. They were /stories/ - parables - to illustrate a point. No one thinks there really was a farmer who had ten sheep and then lost one. Why do you think the parable of creation in Genesis is any different? > unwilling in your inmost man to hear the truth. As such, you will never > come to understand until you humble yourself, and are willing to hear the > truth. On the day you do, that truth will make you free. I am happy with truth, and with rational sense. But I am not happy with nonsense. The evidence for a 4.5 billion year old earth, with the evolution of species, is all around us. Either that is the facts of the world's history, and god fits within that picture (setting things in motion, guiding things along the way, etc.), or he has gone to incredible lengths purely to fool people. To me, that sounds petty, jealous, egotistic, and verging on evil - not the sort of god I'd be interested in knowing. (And don't ladle more of this "it's all Satan's fault" on us - if God is in charge, then /he/ is responsible. The buck stops there.) The alternative explanation, of course, is that there is no god. |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 14 11:07PM +0100 On 14/09/2014 23:02, David Brown wrote: > illustrate a point. No one thinks there really was a farmer who had ten > sheep and then lost one. Why do you think the parable of creation in > Genesis is any different? According to Jesus the Old Testament is true. According to Jesus Adam and Eve existed. Obviously Jesus never existed either (or if he did he was only an ignorant human like Rick here). /Flibble |
| Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>: Sep 15 12:24AM +0200 On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 09:12:44 -0700 (PDT) > be willing to hear the truth to hear the truth. It is easy to listen > to other voices because there are millions of them. But there is only > one voice which is Truth. There is no Truth. |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment