Re: Recapping on “Bug Sort”.

[Austin Obyrne <austin.obyrne@hotmail.com>]

On Saturday, June 23, 2012 9:00:48 PM UTC+1, Jeffrey Carter wrote:
> On 06/23/2012 12:07 PM, Austin Obyrne wrote:
> >
> > The very salient thing that everybody is missing is the way the data is
> > collected and sorted simultaneously in "Parallel Sort" compared to Count
> > Sort.
> 
> What you are missing is that you have seen 2 implementations of Counting Sort. 
> The one in Wikipedia is presented as a standalone subprogram that gets an input 
> array of values and sorts it into an output array. This is how a reusable 
> implementation would look. Since Counting Sort is not a general sorting 
> algorithm, few real implementations will look like this. Instead, they will look 
> like:
> 
> Your implementation, which is not a standalone subprogram nor reusable, that has 
> the operations of the algorithm scattered through the program that is 
> collecting/generating the data to be sorted.
> 
> -- 
> Jeff Carter
> "Ah, go away or I'll kill ya."
> Never Give a Sucker an Even Break
> 100
> 
> 
> 
> --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---

Nope,

I haven't seen anything at all in Wikipedia . 

What I have is an embedded program that collects and sorts data with the minimum of handling, it happens to share a very small common feature with "Count Sort" in the way that sorting is done according to magnitude.  This does not justify saying that it is a clone or even a strong resemblance of "Count Sort" however. 

It is quite wrong and really stretching a weak connection to say that my "Parallel Sort" is a rediscovery of "Count Sort" - the comparison is too tenuous by a long way. 

"Parallel Sort" studiously obviates the need fo any user assistance by way of keyboard operators or externally prepared batch files. *This is the nub of the matter.

The shared sorting method is almost trivial.


Regards - Austin O'Byrne