|We don't bite newbies here... much|
Why? What purpose would that serve?
just go around crippling
Who? Me? You? MS? Everyone? Retroactively?
all kinds of methods
Just PRNGs? What else would you include?
on Linux in addition to Windows
What about Solaris? HP? z/OS?
just so that it is painfully obvious that no one should try to do anything with any built-ins?
are these Perl built-ins you are talking about?
Clearly doing a shabby job is not the answer.
"the answer" to what?
Are you attempting to critique MS for the PRNG in their C runtimes?
Or the Perlish authors for not correcting it?
Or me for suggesting that maybe the MT PRNG could be added to the core; even if only as an "approved extension" if it was felt adding it as a built-in carried some kind of risk?
You display muddy thinking, perhaps the reason you chose to post anonymously.
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.
In reply to Re^4: Random numbers are not random enough on Windows