That is not correct. Small example: Memory management is taken away from the programmer in C# with the result a decrease in efficiency and performance, It seems to me you have absolutely no idea what you're doing.
My replies to a few comments: 1. Inexperienced Developer. I am not looking for an inexperienced developer but a developer without real low latency trading experience. 2. Read a few books and learn. Hmmm....the problem with most books is that they are written by non-practitioners or people who are after PR. If anyone has a really good book on real world US cash equities market microstructure and low latency/HF trading...I would like to hear about it. I have read most of the books out there and personally know the authors, while they are good people they have an agenda of PR for consulting or other reason. For an inexperienced trader, books are a great starting point but with a pinch of salt. 3. C# v C++. This goes in the same camp as C++ versus Java. C++ is better for HF/low latency trading for many reasons...not least of all is Garbage Collection. Then to those that howl that Java, is as fast as C++...there is truth in this but it is a limited truth. For example, you can build a java app whereby all objects are just created upfront and then just reused, warm up JVM before production, etc, etc...but these are all hacks to improve how Java then works. But it is true that it is quicker to build apps in Java than C++ 4. Contact Me. Since this site now has PM disabled for new members, please email me at: username (look on left) at gmail dot com. Happy New Year, may it be profitable.
In other words, you're looking for someone just dumb enough to help you for free but not dumb enough that they can't write a line of code. Not trying to be facetious here but it does sound like you are looking for someone to take advantage of. Why exclude those that do have some background or are you afraid they'll see through your game too easily?
>In other words, you're looking for someone just dumb enough to help you for >free but not dumb enough that they can't write a line of code. >Not trying to be facetious here but it does sound like you are looking for >someone to take advantage of. Why exclude those that do have some >background or are you afraid they'll see through your game too easily? I would happily work with someone who has some real background in this, but then there is less for them to learn so I assumed my offer would have less value to them. It is interesting to see how negative some people are versus others who are positive, it really effects how an individual responds to my original post. I have made a serious offer here (and a few other places) to see what the response is and if this might work. Overall the results have been good, with inquiries from talented software people who clearly understand what the deal is.
Agreed, I don't see the point of flaming you. If someone takes you up on it, and s/he learns from you, s/he will earn "deferred" comp if/when s/he moves on to bigger and better things.
Maybe you don't get the negative responses because you don't have the vantage point of an experienced software developer. If an experienced developer really wants to learn about a new industry, he will find work in that industry. Most software development skills are universal, regardless of application. Yes, each application has its own complexities, but they can be learned "on the job". The "value" you offer of learning is already side-benefit of paying jobs, except that they also pay fair value for the services provided (software development, in this case). You are basically offering a volunteer position for someone to potentially build something of value for you. It's like a developer who has his own capital and is looking to set up his own automated system approaching an experienced trader and asking him to share his expertise on the markets for free, with the promise that he'll learn a lot about automated system implementation throughout the process. It doesn't happen. You pay them either up front or with the promise of shared profits. Don't try to make this seem like some kind of goodwill gesture. I use the word experienced repeatedly for a reason. If you're looking for a student or new grad to help you, this seems like a more reasonable proposition.
A smart kid in a good state university studying MFE or in a graduate CS program can use this to leapfrog into the hedgefund industry.
Being a good programmer is more than only having the ability to write good code. It's knowing how the industry/process and others work so you can write the best code possible. If I would be a "I am an experienced low latency automated trader looking for a good C# developer who wants to learn trading strategy development." I would just hire the best programmer I can find and pay him to do what I want. Saying that you don't have time to raise capital is a JOKE. I get payed for programming work $850 a day. I did a few short term programming work projects that payed me $1750 a day. The $850 a day is an absolute normal rate for long term (6months to 2 years) projects here in Europe. If good programmers want to know about market micro structure they can just read these 2 books and be experts at it : Empirical Market Microstructure: The Institutions, Economics, and Econometrics of Securities Trading by Joel Hasbrouck http://www.amazon.com/Market-Micros...7619/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1325742393&sr=8-3 Market Microstructure Theory by Maureen O'Hara http://www.amazon.com/Empirical-Mar...1641/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1325742393&sr=8-2 End of the story, I don't believe at all you are an experienced low latency automated trader" NOT AT ALL. Or maybe you are, but then you're a really experienced BAD LOSING ONE. That might explain why you don't have money to pay for a programmer, but then I assure you that you have absolutely NOTHING to learn to somebody else, heck you should be educated yourself.
I don't think this thread warrants this much controversy. OP's offer sounds sincere and there are probably some folks willing to exchange some work to learn some knowledge which might not be that easily acquired otherwise.