std.random suggestions

[Dmitry Olshansky]

On Tuesday, 16 September 2025 at 12:04:20 UTC, Denis Feklushkin 
wrote:
> I don't like the way the module std.random is designed
>
> From a software side we have three types of ~random numbers 
> sources:

> That's all, and nothing superfluous! I.e., if you do not use 
> something, it does not creates any global variables, etc. From 
> the point of view of the user, seems, everything is also simple 
> and clear. It will be difficult to make a issue with RNG in 
> this case.
>
> Perhaps this is suitable for Phobos 3?

To be honest this seems like a major overengineering. It’s a 
given in a whole lot of languages that random means PRNG with 
optional seed. The seed could be obtained via some function to be 
largely unpredictable, with the benefit that you could replay the 
program with a particular seed to ease debugging / fuzzing etc.

Now of hardware sources most language would provide CryptoRandom 
which takes the bits from whatever deemed as secure source of 
random bits, most likely get_random or /dev/urandom (yes it is 
fine for generating keys, check the literature). Everything else 
is plain overengineering and deserves to be written in 3rd party 
library by these willing to pursue it.