Talk:Pseudo-random numbers/PCG32: Difference between revisions
→The Pseudocode: The declarative definition of '''Van Eck''' is, in fact, significantly *more* concise, and has fewer moving parts.
(→The Pseudocode: The declarative definition of '''Van Eck''' is, in fact, significantly *more* concise, and has fewer moving parts.) |
|||
Line 25:
::I don't know. Are you trying to blame the C code for your incompetent implementation in Python? The C code is what it is and beyond my responsibility. It is your responsibility to turn it into a good task description enabling authors to produce good implementations, even in Python!--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] ([[User talk:Nigel Galloway|talk]]) 12:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
:(PPs That link points to verbose code over five times longer than the other Python solutions and in an '''un'''-idiomatic functional style). --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 20:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
:: You think so ? look more carefully: the declarative definition of '''Van Eck''' there is significantly '''more''' concise (7 lines of new code vs 11), a smaller number of moving parts, no side effects or mutations) than the slightly messy procedural recipe next to it, which you touchingly characterise as 'idiomatic'.
:: The declarative version also adheres to a long-established principle of productivity, ease of refactoring, and maintenance of quality ''Use library functions whenever feasible'' which is foregrounded by the classic work of Kernighan and Plauger :-) [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 14:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
| |||