[Python-ideas] Python's Source of Randomness and the random.py module Redux

[Steven D'Aprano]

Random832,

You appear to have edited the subject line to remove the word "DRAFT". 
As I explained in an earlier post, that message was a draft and not 
intended to go to the list.

Nevertheless, I will respond to your question below.


On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:23:52AM -0400, random832 at fastmail.us wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015, at 09:36, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > Yes, calling `random.choice` is *significantly better* than calling 
> > `random.SomethingRandom().choice`. It's better for beginners, it's even 
> > better for expert users whose random needs are small, and those whose 
> > needs are greater shouldn't be using the later anyway.
> 
> Why is it that people who need deterministic/seed based random aren't
> considered to be "those whose needs are greater"?

I didn't say that. Read again: I give three groups of people:

- Beginners, who are best served by calling `random.choice` rather than 
  `random.SomethingRandom().choice`.

- Those who are experts *and also* have "small" needs. I didn't define 
  "small needs" because (1) I thought it was obvious in context and (2) 
  the post was a draft and still in progress. What I mean by small needs 
  is that they don't care about reproducibility, security, or having 
  multiple independent PRNGs.

- Those who *do* have "greater" needs, whether expert or not. Again, I 
  thought in context it would be clear that greater needs includes such 
  things as reproducibility, security or multiple independent PRNGs.

In no case that I know of is it a good thing to be creating a brand-new 
instance for each and every call to the PRNG. At best, it is harmless, 
and only a little inefficient. At worst, it is a lot inefficient, and 
potentially may affect the reproducibility, security or statistical 
properties of the random numbers you generate.



-- 
Steve