Difference between revisions of "Talk:221: Random Number"
(11 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The syntax looks like perfectly valid java to me.[[Special:Contributions/213.64.1.189|213.64.1.189]] 22:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC) | The syntax looks like perfectly valid java to me.[[Special:Contributions/213.64.1.189|213.64.1.189]] 22:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
+ | |||
+ | Looks like Java to me too.{{unsigned ip|139.216.242.254}} | ||
+ | :How can Java come to mind when it is pure C syntax, which predates Java by several years and is arguably better known. A feature of most languages is that they have a "C-like syntax". See, a whole page on Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C-based_programming_languages [[Special:Contributions/122.161.20.238|122.161.20.238]] 19:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC) | ||
+ | ::"C-like syntax" is the best explain, this covers all. Even when I disagree that it's better known than Java these days.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC) | ||
+ | :::Just to be particularly pedantic, the double slash for the comment (which is generally utilised in object oriented C-style languages) should be avoided in C to retain backwards compatibility with C89, although it's a valid construct in C99. I'd offer, too, that the lack of library inclusion suggests this isn't necessarily Java, though it's been a couple years since I've had the opportunity to code in it. [[User:Thokling|Thokling]] ([[User talk:Thokling|talk]]) 15:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
As a proof of good joke, RFC 1149 was successfully implemented several times. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC) | As a proof of good joke, RFC 1149 was successfully implemented several times. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
+ | |||
+ | Actually, a poor “random” function like “return 4;” would be quickly determined by statistical test tools (Diehard, Dieharder, etc.) to generate very poor random number. [[User:Samiam|Samiam]] ([[User talk:Samiam|talk]]) 19:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC) | ||
+ | :The number is random, I'm sure Randall really did this "fair dice roll". And even the name of the function is correct, it just returns a random number. A programmer would expect a random number generator, but Randall can't roll the dice all the time.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC) | ||
+ | |||
+ | :<<sound of crickets chirping>> [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 02:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC) | ||
+ | |||
+ | ;Playstation 3 jailbreak reference? | ||
+ | |||
+ | Isn't this a reference to Sony Playstation 3's random number generator function that allowed to discover the private key to 3.55 firmware? {{unsigned ip|141.101.64.23}} |
Revision as of 07:48, 22 August 2014
The syntax looks like perfectly valid java to me.213.64.1.189 22:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Looks like Java to me too. 139.216.242.254 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- How can Java come to mind when it is pure C syntax, which predates Java by several years and is arguably better known. A feature of most languages is that they have a "C-like syntax". See, a whole page on Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C-based_programming_languages 122.161.20.238 19:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- "C-like syntax" is the best explain, this covers all. Even when I disagree that it's better known than Java these days.--Dgbrt (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Just to be particularly pedantic, the double slash for the comment (which is generally utilised in object oriented C-style languages) should be avoided in C to retain backwards compatibility with C89, although it's a valid construct in C99. I'd offer, too, that the lack of library inclusion suggests this isn't necessarily Java, though it's been a couple years since I've had the opportunity to code in it. Thokling (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- "C-like syntax" is the best explain, this covers all. Even when I disagree that it's better known than Java these days.--Dgbrt (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
As a proof of good joke, RFC 1149 was successfully implemented several times. -- Hkmaly (talk) 08:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, a poor “random” function like “return 4;” would be quickly determined by statistical test tools (Diehard, Dieharder, etc.) to generate very poor random number. Samiam (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- The number is random, I'm sure Randall really did this "fair dice roll". And even the name of the function is correct, it just returns a random number. A programmer would expect a random number generator, but Randall can't roll the dice all the time.--Dgbrt (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- <<sound of crickets chirping>> 108.162.219.58 02:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Playstation 3 jailbreak reference?
Isn't this a reference to Sony Playstation 3's random number generator function that allowed to discover the private key to 3.55 firmware? 141.101.64.23 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)