Arsthbt

#include <iostream>
#include <iomanip>


#ifdef USE_OLD_RAND

#include <stdlib.h>
inline double getRandDart() return rand() * 1.0 / RAND_MAX;

#else

#include <random>
std::default_random_engine generator;
std::uniform_real_distribution<double> distribution(0,1);
inline double getRandDart() return distribution(generator);

#endif


// Monte Carlo Simulator to estimate the value of PI.
//
// If we have a circle with a radius of 1.
// Then the smallest square that encloses the circle as sides of length 2.
//
// Area of circle pi r^2 = pi
// Area of square 2.r.2.r = 4
//
// Ratio of overlapping area: pi/4
//
// If we throw darts randomly at a dart board (with an even distribution) and always hit the square.
// Then the ratio of darts falling into the circle should be pi/4 of the total number of darts thrown.
//
// pi/4 * countInSquare = countInCircle
//
// pi = 4 . countInCircle / countInSquare
//
// To simplify the maths.
// We will set the center point as 0,0 and only use the top right quadrant of the circle.
// We have 1/4 the size of the square and circle but the same maths still apply.
//
// A dart thrown has a random x/y value in the range 0->1 (top right quadrant).
// A dart is outside the circle if x^2 + y^2 > 1 (note 1^2 is 1)
//

int main()


 long countInSquare = 0;
 long countInCircle = 0;

 for(long iteration = 0; iteration <= 10'000'000'000; ++iteration) 
 double x = getRandDart();
 double y = getRandDart();

 double d = (x * x) + (y * y);

 countInSquare += 1;
 countInCircle += (d >= 1.0) ? 0 : 1;

 if (iteration % 10'000'000 == 0) 
 std::cout << iteration << " " << (4.0 * countInCircle / countInSquare) << "n";
 
 
 std::cout << "nn" << std::setprecision(9) << (4.0 * countInCircle / countInSquare) << "n";

Output:

> ./a.out
9990000000 3.14158
10000000000 3.14158


3.14158355

One could consider at least the following points:

• Instead of including <stdlib.h>, I'd include <cstdlib>.




• In getRandDart(), it might in this case be more readable to do static_cast<double>(rand()) / RAND_MAX; instead of multiplying by 1.0.




• In the for loop, all of x, y and d can be const, so I'd make them const. This has the potential to protect the programmer from unintended mistakes, and can sometimes allow the compiler to optimize better.




• When you increment by one (in countInSquare += 1;), it makes more sense to use the ++ operator, i.e., to just write ++countInSquare. This is more idiomatic and protects us from unintended mistakes: ++ conveys the meaning of increment (by one), whereas with += we might accidentally write += 2; and that would be perfectly valid (but not what we wanted).




• Regardless of the above point, notice that during the for-loop, it holds that iteration == countInSquare. So strictly speaking, the variable countInSquare is unnecessary and could be replaced by just iteration when needed.




• You could consider making the number of iterations and the second operand of the % operand constants to allow for easier modification and perhaps to slightly improve readability.




• Instead of typing (4.0 * countInCircle / countInSquare) twice, we could make a function that takes the two variables as parameters. This would allow us to save some typing, and again to protect us from unintended mistakes.