On Nov 10, 2012, at 11:34 PM, Jimmie Houchin wrote: > I am considering C++. I know that it is the favorite among quants. I also > know it would open up a world of libraries and code. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_analyst > > When you say make a VM plugin are talking about not using NB?
yes have a look at the chapter of the newBlueBook on my web site. It explains how to write a plugin (starting with an example returning 7) that you can then call from Pharo. http://stephane.ducasse.free.fr/FreeBooks/CollectiveNBlueBook/greenberg.pdf One day we should revisit it. > I am not quite sure what you are talking about doing. I would like to > understand better. > Regarding the wrapper, is that a wrapper around the DLL? > Any education on how to do what you are talking about would be greatly > appreciated. Enough to get me going in the right direction with links or > something. > > I have not read the documentation regarding writing a C++ app yet, as I do > not know C++. > > I'll have to see what I need to do to learn C++. :) > > I agree that this would be the most efficient way with regards to the > application. If it is within reason educationally close in time spent to > Clojure time educationally, I would definitely consider this direction. I > realize anything like this is just a guess and estimate as to my ability to > learn either Clojure or C++. > > Thanks for the encouragement and education. > > Jimmie > > On 11/10/2012 4:12 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote: >> Hi, Jimmie >> i took a brief look at the library and interfaces it provides. >> To my opinion, if i would need to use it, i'd rather make a VM plugin for it. >> First, since its C++, and you need to write wrapper, making wrapper as >> a VM plugin >> is better than just another C library which you need to link via FFI. >> >> Connecting to java: yes its possible, but then it means that you will >> have a java runtime >> in your process, which is much heavyweight.. >> Just want to say, that if efficiency is issue, i would go for VM plugin. >> >> But since you are not me, the price of learning C++/Java may be too >> high, and i understand why >> you looking for alternatives. But in your place i would advise you to >> learn C++ basics. It will open a door >> to other languages of C family (because of similar syntax & rules). >> You may/will need it one day anyways :) >> >> On 10 November 2012 18:42, Jimmie Houchin <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 11/10/2012 11:03 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote: >>>> It is too much imo.. >>>> Clojure->java -> c++ >>>> >>>> i would just write C++ code >>> >>> The API is either Java or C++ or .NET. >>> I agree that no sane person would go Clojure->Java->C++ :) >>> >>> Clojure would provide the option of interfacing natively the Java API, >>> without having to write Java. But then I am left developing in Clojure, >>> unless I decide to serve to Pharo via http/websockets. >>> >>> As I do not currently know Java or Clojure or C++, it currently seemed like >>> learning Clojure as the optimal path of least resistance. >>> >>> That is with a belief that I could learn Clojure better, easier, faster than >>> C++, or at least a sufficient subset of C++ to work with NB. >>> >>> If I could learn a subset of C++ sufficient to interface NB/Pharo with >>> ForexConnect, then I would be happy to do so. >>> http://forexforums.dailyfx.com/forexconnect/392705-forexconnect-api-subscribe-updates.html >>> Especially if I had a roadmap to help provide me with said proficiency and >>> that I could do so in equal or less time than spending with Clojure. >>> It is a pragmatic decision. Long term I want to spend my time in Pharo and >>> not in Clojure or C++, which is why I am attempting what at the moment >>> requires the least effort or at least by best guess appears to be so. >>> >>> I have found nothing that I can program and interactively explore and >>> experiment with better that Smalltalk/Pharo. It is most definitely my >>> preference to do so. And I so greatly appreciate all of the efforts being >>> made to make it an option more of the time. >>> >>> JavaConnect that Stéphane mentioned looks very interesting. >>> >>> I really appreciate your input into this. I can gauge the effort to learn >>> Clojure and I find it reasonable. C++ seems from the outside to be more >>> daunting. I could be wrong. Let me know if you have a different opinion. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Jimmie >>> >> >> > >
