> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.opendemocracy.net/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Random
- URL: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/article-2174jsp/
- Published: 2004-10-20T23:10:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-04-17T11:52:34.000Z
- Author: Bill Thompson
- Tags: #en, #Migrated, #Import 2026-04-09 19:17, #ImagesUploaded

![coding](https://storage.ghost.io/c/3f/80/3f804bea-4b2d-4ddf-9ff0-6ec7d0afa5fa/content/images/2026/04/hacker1_ZAEB7mb-1776425900167.jpg)

coding

If you work for Microsoft – and many people are happy to do so – then one of the things you fear is a critical email from Bill Gates, company founder and now chief software architect. And if you work at a high enough level in Microsoft, then you may even be in the presence when you are told that your code sucks, your ideas are inadequate and your insights are shallow.

But if Gates really wants to show his anger he will simply look at you with disgust and mutter: “that is so *random*”. In the world of the geek – and Gates remains a geek despite his great wealth and business achievements – there are few worse insults.

Randomness, or “gratuitous inelegance”, is one of the worst jibes to throw at a programmer because it implies an inability to order the world in one’s own intellectual [image](http://www.andfinally.com/?ref=opendemocracy.net). It is a disorder that brooks no sympathy – “maybe he’s ill, or maybe it’s just randomness” – and one that causes intense frustration.

*Random* code is not necessarily unpredictable. It is code which does not seem sensible, or work in the obvious or simplest way. If a programmer has written code that works in a *random* way then working with that programme is harder than it needs to be. To a geek, [randomness](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness?ref=opendemocracy.net) increases coding entropy, and this is a bad thing.

For *random* to have meaning, the world must be organised and predictable, expressible in code, and it must be clear what “simple” and “straightforward” mean. A serious programmer will tell you, in all seriousness, that “reality is 50,000 polygons a second”, because geeks have a fundamentally Newtonian view of reality, one in which all numbers can be calculated and all values can be known. (If the human eye was a video game then 50,000 is the number of different shapes, or polygons, it would be sending up the optic nerve every second.) If a variable is given a value, it keeps that value. If there is no [algorithm](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm?ref=opendemocracy.net) then there is no world. To be *random* is to defy the fundamental organising principle of the universe, to be removed from the godhead. Only the devil could wish such a thing.

Yet *random* can also be turned around and used as a term of approval. Sometimes a great [hack](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hack?ref=opendemocracy.net) involves clearly *random* behaviour – a four-dimensional array of pointers to functions that is indexed by treating the ASCII code of the third letter of an input string as a four-tuple might provoke an admiring “that is so *random*!” from a fellow geek.

And don’t worry if you understood none of the previous sentence – the point of most hacker [jargon](http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/index.html?ref=opendemocracy.net) is precisely to exclude unbelievers (email me at [bill@andfinally.com](mailto:bill@andfinally.com) if you want an explanation). There are, of course, times where *random* is simply what the dictionary would have you believe it means: unpredictable. Even then programmers like to play with the meaning in ways that can disconcert the non-geek. A programme routine that generates a *random* number, for use in [cryptography](http://www.ssh.fi/support/cryptography/introduction/?ref=opendemocracy.net) or gambling, may in fact be “pseudo-random”, aspiring to but not quite achieving true randomness. Or it may be too *random* to be dealt with, as in the famous – though perhaps apocryphal – notice pinned to the console of a mainframe computer in the 1970s, which warned unwitting users:

“The random number generator may behave unpredictably.”