Re^5: Truly randomized keys() in perl 5.17

Do you somehow think it contradicts what I said?

You're not very good at this are you.

"Code simplification."
What is the justification for "simplifying" code that has worked perfectly well for a dozen or more releases?
- Does is improve performance? No.
- Does make things more secure? No.
- Does it radically reduce compilation time? No.
- Does it reduce the number of tests that are needed? No.
- Does the simplification remove a dependency upon some external library or tool or exotic skillset? No.
"maintaining the level of security"
You mean, as far as its been considered, it probably didn't make things any worse.
You omitted to mention: "broke a bunch of other people code for no good reason"
A huge, resounding, emphatic: YES!

Contradict? No.

Show up for the pointless, meaningless, politically motivated, incomplete and non-useful diatribe it is. Abso-frickin-lutely.

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Comment on Re^5: Truly randomized keys() in perl 5.17 - a challenge for testing?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: Truly randomized keys() in perl 5.17 - a challenge for testing? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Oct 09, 2013 at 14:24 UTC
What is the justification for "simplifying" code that has worked perfectly well for a dozen or more releases? Maintainability and testability. Why else would you simplify code? You omitted to mention: "broke a bunch of other people code for no good reason" It didn't break any code. It made existing bugs occur more often. That's actually a good thing!	[reply]