On 01/06/14 14:11, Ivan Kazmenko via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
I second the thought that reproducibility across different versions is an important feature of any random generation library. Sadly, I didn't use a language yet which supported such a flavor of reproducibility for a significant period of time in its default random library, so I have to use my own randomness routines when it matters. I've reported my concern [1] at the moment of breakage, but apparently it didn't convince people. Perhaps I should make a more significant effort next time (like a pull request) for the things that matter to me. Well, now I know it does matter for others, at least.
Yes, there probably should be a high bar for changes that break reproducibility in this way (although there certainly shouldn't be a ban: we shouldn't artificially constrain ourselves to avoid significant improvements to the module).
I missed the debate at the time, but actually, I'm slightly more concerned over the remark in that discussion that the new uniform was ported from java.util.Random. Isn't OpenJDK GPL-licensed ... ?
