I’m not enraged, I’m just baffled that someone would come in to a conversation, state things that are wrong, then dig in their heels rather than say “ah yeah I

I’m not enraged, I’m just baffled that someone would come in to a conversation, state things that are wrong, then dig in their heels rather than say “ah yeah I see”. And then keep changing what their “original argument” was in a thread where you can literally scroll up to see what it was. And sorry for the edits, it’s usually not a problem since the time delta between a reply and and it being read it is usually large. I’m just never satisfied with what I’ve written, so I edit until I am. Maybe day I’ll learn to do that before I post. > This was never a personal attack, and I thought I made that very clear. You were the one that brought a personal attack into the conversation. Sucks to be on the receiving end, yeah? > The argument MT vs PRNG XYZ will never be won with implementation code as "proof that it is really better". I am not sure you understand that. It sure as hell is a convincing argument that it’s simpler to implement than MT. > If you still think that, you haven't been coding long enough to see how much worse your own code was when you were younger. 25 years in to my career, thanks. I regularly think this about code I wrote last week. I’m missing the relevance. > knowledge changes It does. I used to be a fan of MT in the nineties when I was young. It sounded cool and it wowed with a huge period stamped on the tin. I updated my knowledge as time passed. > And I don't want to have to maintain a randomizer, because it's the most unnecessary thing to maintain with the most collateral damage if it's ignored. Nobody is asking you to. You’re the one that jumped in to defend MT as a reasonable choice. It isn’t. Progress has happened and this hasn’t been true for a very long time.