On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Dhananjay Nene <dhananjay.n...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Sirtaj Singh Kang <sir...@sirtaj.net>wrote: > >> >> This is not a deal-breaker of course, and this decision to use Python is >> a sensible, pragmatic one (lots of python programmers around, >> financial/statistical libraries are available and mature etc) but IMHO a >> more declarative language would have been nicer from a provability >> standpoint. Being able to write programs that reason about the contracts is >> very important and trying to do it for a general purpose language like >> python will be difficult. >> > > I think a DSL based contract (or more precisely waterfall specification) > may be more concise and self descriptive. But that would require a > definition of a new language grammar. However ***reasoning*** about the > contracts is not in the scope of the SEC specification. The scope is (in my > understanding) a clear communication of the how the waterfall implications > are worked out (eg. how much does each stakeholder get paid and what are the > conditions under which that gets decided) and at least in terms of standard > programming languages Python does pretty well. > > > To further clarify what I meant when I said reasoning was further what if analysis. I anticipate eventually that will find its way into excel or something else that end users are most comfortable with. > > Dhananjay > > > -- > -------------------------------------------------------- > blog: http://blog.dhananjaynene.com > twitter: http://twitter.com/dnene > -- -------------------------------------------------------- blog: http://blog.dhananjaynene.com twitter: http://twitter.com/dnene _______________________________________________ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
