On Sunday, 21 September 2025 at 11:54:22 UTC, Dennis wrote:

Do not insult my intelligence by implying that something with no comprehension of the context of our conversation understands what I said better than I do myself. An LLM is a clueless machine; we are people. You are fully capable of explaining your reasoning.

Perhaps my statement was poorly worded, but I don't think that telling someone that they have no business trying to 'fix' something that they don't understand raises to the level of '[that] kind of language'; implying that I said something heinous about their character.

And I will disagree when I think people are wrong.

On Monday, 22 September 2025 at 00:29:11 UTC, IchorDev wrote:

If you say anything negative about someone's character then it is by definition a personal attack. You're attacking the person, not his argument.

And what you're doing now is the equivalent of punching someone and then saying "but it's not like he died, really so what's the problem?" I mean if the upper threshold for "civil discourse" is saying something "heinous" well that leaves pretty much everything on the table.

On Monday, 22 September 2025 at 00:29:11 UTC, IchorDev wrote:

Whatever your intent, a moderator perceived it as a potential issue and, rather than deleting the post, asked you not to do it again. That was the right move and should have been the end of it. There's nothing to argue here.

So let's please get back on topic. I'll delete any further off topic posts.

Thanks!

On Tuesday, 16 September 2025 at 12:04:20 UTC, Denis Feklushkin wrote:

For one, I really hate how std.random is heavily templated, so it ends up being difficult to use in real-world scenarios where you might want to hot-swap the random engine for whatever reason. With current design choices, you are forced to template your stuff too, instead of just writing IRandom r = new WhateverRandom() and calling it a day.

It was so painful that I ended up doing this https://github.com/GrimMaple/mud/blob/master/source/mud/random.d , which I use heavily in my games for random level generation.
My current implementation is flawed - it should mark methods as final so the compiler can figure out to inline the calls when needed, but here's that.

On Sunday, 21 September 2025 at 21:44:54 UTC, 0xEAB wrote:

Yes. But I wrote this because I realized that access to getentropy and getrandom (here I mean system-independed analogs) is absolutely necessary and actually it is already implemented in std.internal.entropy

Otherwise, for example, if we want to generate 3 bytes of random numbers from freshly created Ranadom() we spent at least 4 bytes of expensive "true entropy" to establish our own PRNG, which we also declared as cryptographically insecure.

It's much easier and not error prone to directly access the system RNG or create our own generator with implicit global seed value (if system not provides CSPRNG for us). This will immediately make it possible to obtain crypto-secure random numbers.

At the coding stage we know exactly what quality of random numbers we are agreed at this particular code point: maybe, people got upset because they actually wanted crypto-secure randoms? And if std.random returning the same sequence every time it's launched (I'm not even talking about cryptographic security), then this is most likely not what they want.

We could further add methods I suggested so that the user knows exactly what quality of random numbers they'll obtain. And then old interface can be deprecated over time.

(But, in fact, for most modern systems we are calling getentropy inside of Phobos std.internal.entropy)

Yes, I mentioned this: if TRNG isn't available, proposed functions simply won't be available. So user will either be forced to agree insecure pseudo-random sequences or be forced to find another way to achieve randomness.

On Monday, 22 September 2025 at 09:37:28 UTC, Denis Feklushkin wrote:

Forgot to add: these options should not be selected automatically based on some heuristics. Because we know exactly the minimum level of quality of random numbers that we are willing to agree to.