Recapping on “Bug Sort”.

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

Several things have been pointed out to me by informed readers that I have taken on board.  I appreciate the good intention and am truly grateful for the advice.

First of all I have been told that the name is unbecoming and I am changing it therefore to “Parallel Sort” because of the way it works in parallel and concurrently with a computer program at run time.

Any number of variables in a computer program may be tracked simultaneously and the changing values are written to dedicated sorting arrays and sorted immediately as they occur in an ongoing process.  This obviates double handling of data that needs to be sorted by the user i.e in not having to collect it retroactively by some other means and then sorting it in a separate secondary operation.

I have been told that my program resembles a known sort program called “Counting Sort”.  I would hate to be guilty of plagiarism and I would like to point out therefore that the salient thing about my “Parallel Sort” is that my implementation is geared to capturing data during any unrelated program run-time and assigning the data in such a way that the separate elements index their own addresses in the sorting arrays.  A similarity with some other existing paper algorithm is simply fortuitous.

I am not on the make for anything like fame or fortune (perish the thought) but in fairness I think that where discrete data is a conditional caveat (i.e. general sorting that would include float data type is not being claimed), I have invented a useful tool in programming and in computer science that previously did not exist. It is acknowledged that this sort program is limited to discrete data types only.

The invention has an attractive “time complexity “ rating.
Tests to date indicate 14250 integers sorted in less that 1 second – much better results are expected later – the development is ongoing.

I would like to thank everybody who has helped me in this matter recently.

-Austin O’Byrne.