Option Pricing Simulator in Haskell with API Endpoint 1.0

[Paul Lopez]

Paul Lopez submitted a new resource:

Option Pricing Simulator in Haskell with API Endpoint - Haskell-based RESTful service for pricing European options using Monte Carlo, Black-Scholes, and FDM

The Option Pricing Simulator is a Haskell based service for calculating European-style option prices. Leveraging Monte Carlo simulations, the Black-Scholes formula, and the Crank-Nicolson finite difference method, it provides flexible, configurable options for both Call and Put options. Designed with a RESTful API interface, this application ensures seamless integration into financial workflows, offering real-time pricing insights with an emphasis on performance and error handling for...

Read more about this resource...

 

[Paul Lopez]

Being a life long object oriented guy Haskell really blew my mind. I think it is quite beneficial for students to at least play with it some to develop new ways of thinking. If I am not mistaken students in the UK are required to take at least one course in Haskell. @Daniel Duffy I'm sure has more to say on it.

OCaml and Scala are the only other pure functional programming languages I've ever encountered in the wild working on Wall Street.

 

[Daniel Duffy]

Being a life long object oriented guy Haskell really blew my mind. I think it is quite beneficial for students to at least play with it some to develop new ways of thinking. If I am not mistaken students in the UK are required to take at least one course in Haskell. @Daniel Duffy I'm sure has more to say on it.

OCaml and Scala are the only other pure functional programming languages I've ever encountered in the wild working on Wall Street.

Haskell is very important and influential.
Seems it inspired C++ Concepts.

A comparison of c++ concepts and haskell type classes | Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN workshop on Generic programming

dl.acm.org

 

[Daniel Duffy]

QUOTE

• Concepts (and constraints) are predicates that determine whether a type is a member of a set. You do not need to explicitly declare whether a type is a model of concept (an instance of a type class). That's determined by a set of requirements and checked by the compiler. In fact, concepts do not allow you to write "T is a model of C" at all, although this is readily supported using various metaprogramming techniques.
• Concepts can be used to constrain non-type arguments, and because of constexpr functions and template metaprogramming, express pretty much any constraint you could ever hope to write (e.g., a hash array whose extent must be a prime number). I don't believe this is true for type classes.
• Concepts are not part of the type system. They constrain the use of declarations and, in some cases template argument deduction. Type classes are part of the type system and participate in type checking.
• Concepts do not support modular type checking or compilation. Template definitions are not checked against concepts, so you can still get late caught type errors during instantiation, but this does add a certain degree of flexibility for library writers (e.g., adding debugging code to an algorithm won't change the interface). Because type classes are part of the type system, generic algorithms can be checked and compiled modularly.
• The Concepts TS supports the specialization of generic algorithms and data structures based based on the ordering of constraints. I am not at all an expert in Haskell, so I don't know if there is an equivalent here or not. I can't find one.
• The use of concepts will never add runtime costs. The last time I looked, type classes could impose the same runtime overhead as a virtual function call, although I understand that Haskell is very good at optimizing those away.

 

[Daniel Duffy]

I have ported the GOF Ganma patterns from OOP way to Haskell/Concepts way.