Nick Wedd wrote:
> In message <69qdnTw3ffk8Z4TVnZ2dnUVZ_qfinZ2d@comcast.com>, Jerry Stuckle
> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes
>> Nick Wedd wrote:
>>> In message <n8GdnZSDT8M7gIrVnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Jerry
>>> Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes
>>>> Cosmic programmer wrote:
>>>>> How good is the rand function of MySQL? How can it be improved?
>>>>> Thx.
>>>>> --
>>>>> When you argue with a fool, chances are he's doing the same
>>>>
>>>> It's as good as pretty much any pseudo-random number generator. Why
>>>> do you think it needs to be improved?
>>> If it's only as good as any pseudo-random number generator, it
>>> definitely needs to be improved.
>>> Nick
>>>
>>
>> And exactly how would you do that? Most pseudo-random number
>> generators are pretty good, IMHO. And there is no such thing as a
>> true random number generator.
>
> Knuth's "Numerical recipes in C" explains what can be wrong with
> system-supplied rand() functions. He wrote it 20 years ago, and things
> must have improved since then; but I still wouldn't trust a
> system-supplied rand(). He gives code for improving a system rand(),
> also for replacing it by one known to be good. His code is in C of
> course, but is quite short and is easily translated into other languages.
>
> Nick

So? You don't think the system programmers haven't improved in 20
years? Unless you have a specific problem with it, why reinvent the wheel?

In fact, I'll bet that in 20 years even Knuth's random number generator
has been improved upon.


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================