[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Scheme-reports] randomness in wg1
- To: scheme-reports@x
- Subject: [Scheme-reports] randomness in wg1
- From: Marco Benelli <mbenelli@x>
- Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 02:22:43 -0700 (PDT)
I'd like to make some comments about randomness in wg1, recently discussed
on wg1 mailing-list.
As a physicist who has worked with simulations for long time, I think that
it would be very valuable to have a good quality pseudo random number
generator, at least as a module, and I strongly agree with Bradley Lucier about
the properties that a PRNG should have.
Simulations could probably be classified as "real world programming", and
then in the scope of WG2, but I feel there are good reasons to have PRNG in WG1:
1. Often a 'small language' is enought for simulations, I will be
disappointed in being forced to use a 'large language' *only* for PRNG.
2. Not being strong enough for cryptographical application is not a issue:
I think nobody would have this expectation for a built-in PRNG.
3. OTOH being strong enough for simulation is a great improvement
for portability, and this is an explicit goal for WG1.
4. Srfi-27 is already widely adopted, according to:
It's true that prescribe a specific PRNG is unusual, but it could be justified
by two reasons: a) the implementation is simple, b) today most of mainstream
languages are defined by a single implementation (or a dominant one); I see
great value in scheme not being defined this way, and if I understand correctly
the steering committe position statement, the main goal of the report is to
reduce the drawbacks of diversity of scheme's constituencies. Reliabilty of
PRNG between implementations would be a huge step, at least for scientific
computing, in the direction of "construct better programs in better ways:
quickly, easily, robustly, scalably, correctly".
Scheme-reports mailing list