Anonymous user
Talk:Pseudo-random numbers/PCG32: Difference between revisions
→The Pseudocode: low effort criticism
(→The Pseudocode: The declarative definition of '''Van Eck''' is, in fact, significantly *more* concise, and has fewer moving parts.) |
(→The Pseudocode: low effort criticism) |
||
Line 22:
:The link mentions this code: https://github.com/imneme/pcg-c-basic/blob/master/pcg_basic.c for the algoroithm which has these side effects.
::As I expected, but is finding some badly written C code on the web, converting it without examination to something you call pseudocode the way to produce a good task. Unless you can explain why you (the C code) needs to call next_int I do not think this should be promoted from draft status. P>S> The C code does it is not a good explanation--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] ([[User talk:Nigel Galloway|talk]]) 12:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
::I've read your criticism, and note that although this is a wiki you refrain from writing the task or suggesting improvement. It would have been better if you made alterations to the pseudocode so others could judge. As for the quality of the C code, It's by the author of the algorithm with their own priorities. Your low effort criticism is viewed appropriately. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 15:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
:(Ps, if this is an answer to my earlier section then it may need to be a sub-header). --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 20:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
::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)
| |||