Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!uh2
From: UH2@PSUVM.BITNET (Lee Sailer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Random
Message-ID: <89256.111549UH2@PSUVM.BITNET>
Date: 13 Sep 89 15:15:49 GMT
References: <19504@unix.cis.pitt.edu>
Organization: Penn State University
Lines: 18

<1989Sep13.032352.10321@agate.berkeley.edu> <60483@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>

I disagree with this notion that each programmer should be responsible
for rolling a "good" RNG.  I've done this myself too many times, and know
what a pain it can be.  It would be better if the language vendor, eg AREXX,
Lattice, Manx, etc etc etc would do the leg work once, thus saving
hundreds or thousands of wheel reinventions.

Probably, each language should offer at least two RNGs.  One that is
very, very fast, even if it doesn't generate high quality numbers, and
another that generates very high quality numbers, even if it happens to
be a little slow.

Is this topic Amiga specific?  Well, not very much, excpet that we could
ask for each commonly used language which, if either, of these two RNGs
is offered.

           lee