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.
13 Likes
Reward
13
7
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
UnluckyMiner
· 13h ago
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.