|laziness, impatience, and hubris|
those "shuffled" results relate to what the other results represent?
They achieve the same results -- an array of 100 random integers in the range 1 ,, 120 -- 20 times more efficiently than your best attempt and nearly 100 times more efficiently than your worst; whilst saving 100MB of memory and the setup costs.
And the random selection of the values in that array is statistically fair with my method and not with yours.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.