On 6/19/2016 11:18 PM, Tom Worster wrote: > Actually I satisfied myself that both MT19937 and PHP's mt_rand() produce > good quality random variates and I posted the evidence behind the belief. > I don't think being slow and inefficient with memory justifies removal or > deprecation (premature optimization). >
Your message reads very different. http://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=146612561316722&w=2 On 6/19/2016 11:18 PM, Tom Worster wrote: > I think the decision to change this RNG or not is best left to the users. > Only they understand the pros and cons of their specific context. > Furthermore, I would prefer that if they decide nothing, perhaps even > being unaware of the question, they can upgrade PHP and their programs > still work. > > This is my opinion. > Yes, let's ask the users! But we don't do that, we just discuss it here. Howe could we create such a poll that reaches many people? Maybe Reddit? On 6/19/2016 11:18 PM, Tom Worster wrote: > It is quite common that different people can have full and correct > appreciation of the technical aspects of something and have different > judgements regarding the best action. So I am surprised you cannot imagine > that someone who disagrees with your conclusions could understand the > facts of the matter. > > In the language of politics and policy, since that's what this really > is... You advocate a top-down structural approach to changing individual > behavior for their own and the greater good. I advocate for new > facilities, education, and the individual's responsibility to decide > what's best for them. Subjective differences like this shouldn't be > unbelievable, they should be expected. > > As a general matter of taste, I don't like to be drawn by the "prove me > wrong" rhetorical method. And in this specific position of this > php-internals thread I don't see any chance of changing minds by arguing > over what constitutes a legitimate use of a random in a PHP program. So, > on both counts, I prefer not to. > > You have clearly stated your positions and explained your reasons. Please > grant that other people with different positions and reasons may not feel > any need or desire to prove you wrong and please don't represent this as > evidence in support of your assertions. > > Tom > Thanks for this thoughtful response. I think that my harsh attitude here also reflect my frustration of the resistance towards cleaning things up in general and is not only about this thread in particular. This is of course not right of me. That being said, I repeat myself now, nikic also proposed to deprecate rand() and having pcg_rand() as a modern replacement for mt_rand() is just logical for me and yes it is hard to understand for me how people can be against that. I did not say that people are not allowed to be against this view, just that I it is hard or close to impossible for me personally to follow that logic. We'll see where it leads us. :) -- Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
