Flame bait: D vs. Rust vs. Go Benchmarking

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On Thursday, 25 July 2013 at 11:22:47 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
> Is this a big problem performance wise though? I mean, the bug 
> was *only* that the first few iteration were "not so random", 
> is this correct? This fix didn't really change the 
> computational cost of the operation, did it?

Re the benchmarks, as they're all using a custom-written 32-bit 
Xorshift, there should be no bias (except against Haskell and 
Scala which are using 128-bit versions).

Re the bug in Phobos Xorshift32, it might affect performance 
slightly as it was caused by a missing xor transformation. But 
it's irrelevant to the benchmark as they're not using it.

The practical effect of the bug was that instead of being 
uniformly distributed, all the numbers being generated were from 
the extreme lower end of the range. (I think you may be confusing 
it with issues related to RandomCover and RandomSample.)

> I mean, it's a problem as far as randomness goes, but for a 
> simple bench, I don't think it is much of a problem.

Most likely. :-)