Seeded random is a glorious thing in the right circumstances. As an example, I've used it for 'random' testing sequences (jumbling up a list of inputs) but in a

Seeded random is a glorious thing in the right circumstances. As an example, I've used it for 'random' testing sequences (jumbling up a list of inputs) but in a way I can later re-run EXACTLY the same test. It's also useful for other data generation tasks where the output can basically be saved as a seed, making it lightweight and easy to store - it could be written it on a scrap of paper in seconds. Maybe it's a bad name though - it should be called seededRandom() or semiRandom() or deterministicRandom(). Or perhaps it should be true random is no seed is set. Hard to know. Maybe the true random only needs to be the seed to a deterministic random and reset on a frequent basis in some cases. Then there's the category of casual random that doesn't matter, like random colours just for the sake of it. It doesn't need to be a secure safe random. And... assuming that any random function is truly random is a mistake anyway. Basing on hardware, and it may fail. Base it on software and where's the source of entropy. Add to that the possibility of bugs/defects in the implementation, and it's possible that it might not be as random as it needs to be. It's better to assume ALL RNGs are PRNGs, with the caveat that some are decidedly better than others. So no I wouldn't support a ban on it, nor would I support removing it from any language/runtime where it might be useful.