Welcome! Eternally Confuzzled began as a supplementary resource for information that I personally was unable to find easily elseweb. Typically this meant data structures and algorithms that I felt were covered in insufficient detail. As such, most of the articles are limited to topics where it is my belief that this site is the only or best resource.

That said, I'd like to cover more varied and available topics in the future if only to offer my opinion and experience.


In-depth descriptions and steps for creating...something. Tutorials are generally self-contained and by following them readers should be able to create an application or library from the content contained therein.

Learn more »


Various articles covering a single topic. Articles differ from tutorials in that they are more concerned with knowledge transfer than a step-by-step methodology for creating...something.

Learn more »


Carefully written production-quality libraries by yours truly and often based on information described in corresponding tutorials/articles. All libraries are offered in the public domain, so no permission from the author is required to use them. However, the author assumes no responsibility for any damages that may occur from any use of material acquired on this website. Use them at your own risk.

Learn more »

Updates (decending order)
  • 2015 (March): Added a tutorial on basic tries.
  • 2015 (March): Completely rewrote the article on rand based on feedback.
  • 2015 (March): Added an article on Windows services in C#. Hopefully, I'll start adding more C# stuff.
  • 2015 (March): Added an article on atoi.
  • 2015 (March): Obviously I redesigned the entire site. :)
Lazy Blog (Random Thoughts)
Licensing and fair usage

What license does Eternally Confuzzled use? Can you copypasta my stuff? Yes! The content on this site is public domain, and I couldn't care less what you use or how you use it. Anything else would defeat the purpose of the site, which is to facilitate knowledge transfer and make life easier for programmers. I don't even care if you copy entire articles verbatim and place them elseweb. They wouldn't be updated to match the latest site, but that's your problem, not mine. :)

All that said, I can't make it clear enough that I accept no responsibility at all for damages caused by direct use of content or modified content. I don't anticipate any such damages, but public domain means you're on your own. Do what you will, and don't come crying to me if something breaks. If any of my published content is wrong or broken somehow, I'd love to hear about it so I can fix it here, of course. Feedback is always welcome; that hasn't changed. Further, I'll be happy to respond with my thoughts and suggested fixes for your problems, and those are public domain as well.

Long story short, help yourself. Though in legal terms I'm completely off the hook for what you choose to do. Keep that in mind.

Random numbers are hard

For the most part feedback on this site has been positive (yay!) Well, except for one article in particular. I've read some scathing criticism of the Using rand() article. That's all well and good; I can handle criticism, and in fact welcome it. :) What disturbs me is that the criticism was well warranted.

From a minor mistake in terminology, to major mistakes that contradict everything, to being flat out wrong in places, I reviewed the criticism thoroughly and found the article wanting. I have no excuse and apologise for the quality of information. This was one of my earliest articles, and either I was too rushed to get something published or had a not uncommon bout of insanity when writing it. Something needed to be done, as I wasn't willing to let things stand as they were.

So what to do? I seriously considered dropping the article entirely, but it's referenced enough that doing so would be unwise. In the end I decided to rewrite it. This somewhat flies in the face of my goals for this site as there are other articles in the webosphere that cover the same information with more detail. In fact, one of the criticisms was "this is the same as my article with less information", and that's fair. However, another one of my goals is to make the information accessible, and the other articles in question were a little too deep of a dive to meet that goal. So I think mine still has value.

The new article is basically a "don't use rand" article with introductory explanations of why and suggested alternatives. Hopefully the rewrite addresses most criticisms while still adhering to the spirit of Eternally Confuzzled. Time will tell. :)

© 2015 - Eternally Confuzzled