262 karma · joined October 1, 2014
It was blaze and bokeh. The description of blaze given in the article is pretty out of date at this point.
At scale this always becomes true. C++ can be written with reference counting and other high level concepts with runtime penalties. When you need to optimize or scale, you will never need to look to another language. I do a lot of numerical computing in Python and often need to drop into Cython or C; in C++ this wouldn't need to happen. One the the main goals of C++ is that "there is no language below C++".
High level language constructs are always nice, and C++ has a lot of "zero-cost" abstractions, meaning you only pay for what you need. For example, an iterator in C++ can just be a raw pointer in the case of iterating over a vector, but it is more complicated for a std::map because it is backed by a tree. C++ is a high-level language, so I don't understand the argument that you would be better off splitting your stack between the "important" parts and the slow parts.
Look at any large C codebase and you will see plenty of goto statements to manage resource cleanup. The problem is using goto in place of structured control flow like loops and if/else. Statements like yours make it seem like there is a conceptual problem with a jump.
- It would be nice to be able to look up companies by CIK instead of just ticker.
- You should support share class delimiters in nyse tickers like BRK.B instead of BRKB
- The chart on the first tab is not split adjusted but the chart on the second tab is but it is not called out anywhere. Check CBB to see a recent example.
- The 'stock price' indicator is not in the list of possible indicators but is in the text box by default.
- The 'share price' indicator shows 'no data to display'.
- There is a typo in the terms and conditions for line 7: "netowrking"
Overall this is a nice resource for quickly looking at fundamentals.
edit: formatting
Maybe this is something like functions calls which use improper sql escaping? I am not sure what is being detected.
I realize I can't win you over but I wanted to present a fair comparison for others ;)
Also, I work on zipline
abc "abc" abc, "abc",
How does increasing the scope simplify things? Defining correct as "crashing less often" is a really bad idea, data formats _should_ be strict.
'[$qq|this is the body|]'.encode('utf-8').decode('quasiquotes') "qq._quote_expr(0,' this is the body')"