Re: True or False ?

[Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>]

> No, I have not done any research on current sort algorithms.

It's actually kinda interesting; though it can quickly become rather technical.
 
> The replies from you and the other readers have brought me up to date however.
> I can see now that there is still some research going on and that is what I really wanted to know - it is not a closed book by any means.

It may actually have been on the verge of being "closed-book" for the most part, except that the move toward more parallel (esp multicore) systems means that a lot of them will have to be revisited if only to ensure that they both "play well" and 'are efficient' in parallel.

Indeed, this paper ( http://www.irma-international.org/viewtitle/66353/ ) shows that Shellsort is about twice as fast as Quicksort on parallel (CDUA in this case) systems. This is interesting because the Shellsort has traditionally always been been in the class of "better worst-case, better best-case, worse avg-case" when compared to Quicksort. So the move to parallel systems in non-trivial and has profound impact on what's "best".

> My scheme will make all of these other sort programs redundant possibly but I am not clear why in my own mind - is speed still the essence in sort programs?  I think you will like the connection with Ada when it comes.

That would be nifty.

> I will of course watch out now for making staements about academia.
> 
> Could I ask you to watch this space so to speak when I go public with my scheme - there is alot of Ada in it and it may even become a bench mark for comparisons with the existing sort algorithms.

Well, as an Ada fan/advocate I'd sat that'd be awesome.