>I find it somewhat humorous that you compare building an operating system to a
>trivial twenty line homework program.
Then my purpose was solved.
>That's a bad thing. Even at the lowest level you still need to keep an abstract
>view of your design.
The program I was interacting with were very trivial ( prime number generator ). It was in a algorithm book. There, the author used a ASM, to demonstrate that what a high-level program assumes to be `a step' is actually a series of steps in machine code.
But you said it right, one should be able to `quantize' a step. It also varies from person to person and to which domain he is working.
>it's impossible to add another level of randomness by random shuffles or other
>tricks while we are using the same (extremely bad ) rand() generator.
She assumed a perfect random generator while making that remark, IMHO. And she was right too. More random calls will tend to dilate the variance. (of course, I am too, making this remark assuming a perfect random generator)
Offline 
) rand() generator. 
Marked 
