What is the language of the future in the algo-trading universe? 1. Java 2. Scala 3. C# 4. F# 5. C++ 6. Objective Caml Java is very mature and is still getting better. But where is my closure? Scala is supposed to be a better Java. One word: closure. C# has good features (like closures) and is well supported. F# is trying to be a mainstream functional language. Being functional, it has closures. C++ is very fast (if you can find the right programmers) and is widely used. Besides, the language is powerful enough to fake closures. Objective Caml is a high performance, native-code functional language but I heard it does not support shared-memory concurrency at this time. Fine, trading is not all about closures... What do you think?
I didn't vote you are missing the most crucial future language. The English language. I am forming a company that will turn vocal word commands into programming outcomes using C++. {And If} commands and all the others will be instantly translated into whatever user wants the processes to be within the modules. This is the future
Here's now I know you are a completely full of shit. "turn vocal word commands into programming outcomes" is an extremely difficult thing to do: it's very hard to implement, and even more difficult to construct the theory that allows it work. There are plenty of people in that field working on the problem, but it's no where near practical. So, it's possible that you are working on this research... But then, you end your sentence in "using C++". I am assured that anyone who is actually engaging in this cutting edge research won't consider the language used for the work to be anywhere nearly as important enough to state in the same sentence as the mission statement.
For the uninformed, almost 100 years ago the Positive Natural Language program collapsed because it was shown that natural language contains heterological statements and does not satisfy the law of double negation of logic, amongst many other things. Thus, 100 years ago it was proved that natural language cannot form the basis of a computer language. Examples for the uninformed who invest in the impossible: (from logic courses at the graduate level) Statement: The King of America is fat How do you negate that? You cannot say "The king of America is not fat", simply because there is no King of America. You must say NOT (The King of America is fat) which is no longer natural language. It is computer language. Another example, similar to the one that destroyed the Logical Positivism program: The word big is small Here we have a heterological statement. Big describes something BIG but it is a small word. Good luck with the impossible. This is why Positive Languages (Computer Languages) were invented. Too much non-positiviness (high entropy/chaos) in natural language.
How do I edit a poll? It says permission denied when I click edit. How about LEGO Mindstorms? Talking about trading bots... it may even make coffee.