##Question response

I'd also like to know if this is a fair generator, or if it's more likely to get one shade than another. I don't see why it would, but you never know.

It seems fair to me... the random function returns "A floating-point, pseudo-random number"^[1][1] so while the sequence could repeat, it might be very unlikely - refer to this SO answer for more of an explanation of that ... also read more about it in answers to this SO question: Will Math.random repeat?

##Feedback:

• good use of constants
• good use of arrow functions - e.g. onclick function, onkeyup function

##Suggestions:

• use const instead of let for anything that doesn't change: randomNum, e.g. hexCode - refer to this answer for basis

• shorten the arrow function in onkeyup to use short-circuiting instead of if statement:

    document.body.onkeyup = e => e.keyCode == 32 && applyColor();
  

  This tends to be faster, though it may seem less readable to some (see performance test here)

Question response

I'd also like to know if this is a fair generator, or if it's more likely to get one shade than another. I don't see why it would, but you never know.

It seems fair to me... the random function returns "A floating-point, pseudo-random number"^[1][1] so while the sequence could repeat, it might be very unlikely - refer to this SO answer for more of an explanation of that ... also read more about it in answers to this SO question: Will Math.random repeat?

Feedback:

• good use of constants
• good use of arrow functions - e.g. onclick function, onkeyup function

Suggestions:

• use const instead of let for anything that doesn't change: randomNum, e.g. hexCode - refer to this answer for basis

• shorten the arrow function in onkeyup to use short-circuiting instead of if statement:

    document.body.onkeyup = e => e.keyCode == 32 && applyColor();
  

  This tends to be faster, though it may seem less readable to some (see performance test here)