Path: csiph.com!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: emf <emfril@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript
Subject: Re: Random numbers
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 20:32:31 -0400
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <ose4is$14l2$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <osa2ld$6t0$1@gioia.aioe.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: KQE17V6I+pklevNrq35dhw.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Content-Language: en-US
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:34152

On 2017-10-19 07:35, emf wrote:
> I am wondering if there is a better (but still not too complicated) way 
> to generate random numbers then the Math.random(). My idea is to get the 
> microseconds, multiply them by, say 10000, bet the integer, and then the 
> modulus of that. Wouldn't that give more random numbers?
> '
> Thanks,
> 
> Eustace


The discussion was quite interesting and it gave me leads to pursue. But 
here is a more specific question: would the following function provide 
*more* random results than the Math.random()?

// returns a random number from 1 to top
function random(top) {
     var now = new Date();
     var hh = now.getHouera();
     var mm = now.getMinutes();
     var ss = now.getSeconds();
     var ms = now.getMilliseconds();
     var tim = (hh * 1440000) + (mm * 60000) + (ss * 1000) +  ms;
     var rndm = (tim % top) + 1;
     return rndm;
}

Eustace

-- 
It ain't me, babe - A radical reinterpretation
http://emf.neocities.org/bd/itaintmebabe.html