I've heard recently that many people are considering a complete switch to AI programming assistants. But I personally plan to continue subscribing to my current main tools. The reason is actually quite simple—my quantitative arbitrage system code can currently only be stably reconstructed and maintained by specific advanced models. Although other tools can do small patches and fixes, when it comes to large-scale architecture optimization, the probability of introducing hidden bugs significantly increases. What's more concerning is that only that high-level model can reliably diagnose and fix such deep-seated issues. In scenarios where the stability of financial trading code is so critical, this difference translates into real costs and risks. So, in the short term, I will stick with my current tech stack.
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
18 Likes
Reward
18
10
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
SnapshotBot
· 01-16 07:08
Really, I dare not gamble on financial code. One hidden bug can cause huge losses.
---
Honestly, I'm used to it and reluctant to change; the cost of switching tools is too high.
---
That's why I haven't followed the trend; stability > affordability.
---
There are very few trustworthy tools for quantitative trading code, I won't switch randomly.
---
Understood, the financial scene has zero tolerance for bugs; compromises are not acceptable.
---
Having reliable tools to stick to is more valuable than anything else.
---
The key is that the advanced model is indeed more stable; others really can't compare.
View OriginalReply0
StablecoinAnxiety
· 01-15 23:34
Quantitative trading definitely requires caution; a bug could mean blood, sweat, and tears money.
Stability > affordability; this principle is the truth when it comes to financial code.
By the way, why not try to strengthen the audit process yourself... Relying solely on model stability is a bit risky.
It's already 2024, and still worrying about tool stability—feels a bit like being held back.
The key is, for those switching to new tools, who will take the blame if problems arise later?
The words "cost" and "risk" make me feel exhausted.
It would be great to have a backup plan; relying too much on a single model is indeed risky.
View OriginalReply0
CryptoWageSlave
· 01-15 01:16
Haha, that's why I'm still renewing that ridiculously expensive subscription.
View OriginalReply0
UnluckyMiner
· 01-14 11:18
Just raise my hand to renew the premium model, no choice, bugs in financial code are really unaffordable to play with.
View OriginalReply0
ImpermanentPhobia
· 01-13 16:57
Ha, that's the key. Once there's a bug in the financial code, it's a matter of real money.
View OriginalReply0
UncleWhale
· 01-13 16:56
Bro, you really can't afford to make mistakes with financial code.
That's why I hesitate to switch either; I've stepped on too many mines.
View OriginalReply0
RektCoaster
· 01-13 16:50
To be honest, I don't dare to gamble with financial code; one bug could mean money.
View OriginalReply0
GateUser-a5fa8bd0
· 01-13 16:47
Bro, this is what happens when you're bound by a certain model—you can't escape.
View OriginalReply0
FreeRider
· 01-13 16:45
This guy is right, financial code is no joke.
View OriginalReply0
MidnightMEVeater
· 01-13 16:35
Good morning everyone, a reflection at 2 a.m.: What you spend money on isn't tools, but the probability of survival.
I've heard recently that many people are considering a complete switch to AI programming assistants. But I personally plan to continue subscribing to my current main tools. The reason is actually quite simple—my quantitative arbitrage system code can currently only be stably reconstructed and maintained by specific advanced models. Although other tools can do small patches and fixes, when it comes to large-scale architecture optimization, the probability of introducing hidden bugs significantly increases. What's more concerning is that only that high-level model can reliably diagnose and fix such deep-seated issues. In scenarios where the stability of financial trading code is so critical, this difference translates into real costs and risks. So, in the short term, I will stick with my current tech stack.