4 ms·
1. Every remotely competent language has a secure (P)RNG and is using it to Fisher-Yates shuffle. Go is not special in this regard. 2. Nobody in this thread is
by kerkeslager 1y ago
1. Every remotely competent language has a secure (P)RNG and is using it to Fisher-Yates shuffle. Go is not special in this regard.
2. Nobody in this thread is criticizing Fisher-Yates, because in all likelihood all of us are using Fisher-Yates. We're discussing the failure of the algorithm used in the article.
3. Please take the time to read and understand the posts you respond to before you respond to them.
- awesome_dude 1y agoIn case anyone is following along, the hostility the above poster is demonstrating is because there isn't any shuffling algorithm that isn't susceptible to the RNG issue, and he didn't think about the cryptographically secure RNGs in use today.
- kerkeslager 1y agoMy friend, I am not hostile. I'm merely pointing out that you have not understood a single post you've responded to. Including the one you responded to just now. The following algorithm is not susceptible to RNG issues (in Rust, since I've been playing around with it): fn shuffle(vec: &Vec) -> () { } And I'm sure since you're reading all these posts so carefully you'll totally understand why this is both a joke and a proof that you don't know what you're talking about.
- awesome_dude 1y agoMore snark, thus proving the initial assessment.
- kerkeslager 1y agoA smart move, not responding on topic, since you clearly don't understand the topic. Instead, just accuse me of being snarky! Guilty as charged, I guess, but at least I can read and understand what I'm responding to.