Re: TIB: wieghted dice
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: TIB: wieghted dice
I think this has degraded to petty flaming.
>>> Using a program to "unbalance" the dice is more likely to
>>> obscure the probabilities rather than provide a realistic
>>> image. Easy, but pointless.
>>
>> Actually, it's neither easy nor pointless. Otherwise, this
>> wouldn't have been the 10th letter in the string.
>
> Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. It has absolutely _nothing_ to do with the number
> of letters written.
Why would people talk about easy pointless things on a list? I don't recall
that ever happening (except for petty flames like this one).
> In fact, if that's an argument, then Pam and Tommy are of high priority
> here! ;-)
So the media overestimated popular interest. It happened with OJ and Di.
>> The point
>> is that it's an interesting basic routine to work on and
>> contemplate.
>
> Pray tell, why is that so?
Do you like programming? If not, never mind.
> It is _very_ pointless to modify a program to simulate a reality when
> the twist is really insignificant. It's like making a wargame with
> millions of tank units and include a routine that occasionally blows up
> a tank, to emulate faulty construction. If that isn't pointless then you
> must have a busy life thinking about every little detail in everything
> you do... :-/
Nobody was saying that's what we we're trying to do. The point (and
fun) is writing the routine. Not making war games with millions of tanks.
You are so hung up on the most efficient way of doing it, you didn't
realize that we are discussing it for the programming experience.
>> And just because you or I could whip it out
>> in 5 mins doesn't make it necessarily easy.
>
> Actually that _is_ the definition of easy, something that can be whipped
> out in five minutes.
Actually it's _NOT_. Ease is based on skill and chages per person. Also,
the amount of time it takes you to do something has nothing to do with
it's hardness. There are many things that, if they took me 5 minutes to
do, I would consider them VERY hard.
> The routine is:
> Roll a die.
> Add a number.
> If the result is greater than the number of sides on the die, use the
> max as result.
>
> How hard can it be?
>
> It's not my fault that whoever posted the original routine made it more
> complicated than necessary. It was out of ignorance, not really a sin,
> and it certainly does _not_ make the job any harder. It's really all a
> matter of knowing what the function you use actually does.
Um, that wasn't even the routine in question. If you have something
better, feel free to show us. But if we don't care (like now), then drop
it. We are talking about accurate probablility routines, not the best
way of rolling a dice in basic.
Follow-Ups: