Difference between revisions of "Talk:221: Random Number"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
(Diehard, Dieharder)
Line 7: Line 7:
  
 
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)

Revision as of 19:55, 28 October 2013

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)

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)