From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,d04d2547435a643e X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.68.196.232 with SMTP id ip8mr13226939pbc.6.1339965290388; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 13:34:50 -0700 (PDT) Path: l9ni62284pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Shark8 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: True or False ? Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 13:33:10 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <41c80707-a5aa-4cf9-9f38-70f924c80683@googlegroups.com> References: <17029032-5398-4754-8a85-116d595ce59c@googlegroups.com> <87haual1o2.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <67e507a5-940f-4168-becb-0fd614709bea@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 96.2.54.122 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1339965290 25190 127.0.0.1 (17 Jun 2012 20:34:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 20:34:50 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=96.2.54.122; posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC User-Agent: G2/1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: 2012-06-17T13:33:10-07:00 List-Id: > No, I have not done any research on current sort algorithms. It's actually kinda interesting; though it can quickly become rather techni= cal. =20 > The replies from you and the other readers have brought me up to date how= ever. > 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 mea= ns 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/ ) s= hows that Shellsort is about twice as fast as Quicksort on parallel (CDUA i= n this case) systems. This is interesting because the Shellsort has traditi= onally always been been in the class of "better worst-case, better best-cas= e, worse avg-case" when compared to Quicksort. So the move to parallel syst= ems in non-trivial and has profound impact on what's "best". > My scheme will make all of these other sort programs redundant possibly b= ut I am not clear why in my own mind - is speed still the essence in sort p= rograms? 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. >=20 > 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.