Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Normal
Well I think we should agree upon the definition of bottleneck. If codes are highly optimized and each corporation engaged in HFT has developed such codes then it is reasonable to assume that at least big players can obtain similar technologies, so where is the bottleneck?! I liked both - Joy's and Alexei's opinions but I still think that assuming that for example one financial institution on WS has access to such technology and other has not is less logical than assuming that they differ in intellectual side. I don't think you can say that there exists one standard code (or several already made codes) which is (are) highly optimized and all of the companies have ability to obtain or create similar ones. Then why is there a high demand for computer scientists and encouragement for them to work with research teams to implement the logics they pass in the most efficient way possible?! We should chase the reason in things which make companies different. The codes one companies "best programmers in the world" write are exposed to work highly efficient given the current environment - machines, CPUs, speed, etc. but when a new technology is launched programmers should seek to suit their codes to the new technology obtained WHICH CAN AND DEFINITELY WILL BE OBTAINED BY COMPETITORS. So the technology doesn't much make them differ, but the process and efficiency of keeping up with the new technology does. That's why I think that code optimization is a crucial part of HFT and not the technology. P.S. >Note: In "not the technology" I meant the following... All the firms live in the same environment, so the technology given to one of them will be obtained by another - this is inevitable part of competition. So technology is not relevant in comparing them.
Well I think we should agree upon the definition of bottleneck. If codes are highly optimized and each corporation engaged in HFT has developed such codes then it is reasonable to assume that at least big players can obtain similar technologies, so where is the bottleneck?! I liked both - Joy's and Alexei's opinions but I still think that assuming that for example one financial institution on WS has access to such technology and other has not is less logical than assuming that they differ in intellectual side. I don't think you can say that there exists one standard code (or several already made codes) which is (are) highly optimized and all of the companies have ability to obtain or create similar ones. Then why is there a high demand for computer scientists and encouragement for them to work with research teams to implement the logics they pass in the most efficient way possible?!
We should chase the reason in things which make companies different. The codes one companies "best programmers in the world" write are exposed to work highly efficient given the current environment - machines, CPUs, speed, etc. but when a new technology is launched programmers should seek to suit their codes to the new technology obtained WHICH CAN AND DEFINITELY WILL BE OBTAINED BY COMPETITORS. So the technology doesn't much make them differ, but the process and efficiency of keeping up with the new technology does. That's why I think that code optimization is a crucial part of HFT and not the technology.
P.S. >
Note: In "not the technology" I meant the following... All the firms live in the same environment, so the technology given to one of them will be obtained by another - this is inevitable part of competition. So technology is not relevant in comparing them.
