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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Rick Smith" Subject: Re: Why C++ is successful Date: 1998/08/16 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 381732603 References: <6qfhri$gs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35cb8058.645630787@news.ne.mediaone.net> <902934874.2099.0.nnrp-10.c246a717@news.demon.co.uk> <6r1e1a$mj$1@platane.wanadoo.fr> <6r1kt7$66g$1@hirame.wwa.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 X-Trace: news1.atlantic.net 903296915 207.30.140.158 (Sun, 16 Aug 1998 15:48:35 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 15:48:35 EDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-08-16T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar wrote in message ... >Robert Martin said > > When I need to write a quick sort, and don't have access to a > decent sort function, then I prefer this simple structure... > [...] > >First of all, there is nothing "indecent" about the algorithm that I gave. It >has the merit of being by far the shortest sorting algorithm in generated >code. Yes, it is slow (cubic) but for small numbers who cares, and byt the >way it is optimal for already sorted data (it will outperform bubble sort >or simple selection sort in such a setting, because of less control overhead). > >As to the above algorithm, I actually find it far more contorted. I dislike >the use of a flag that is tested on every loop to avoid an exit, but I >perfectly well understand that some people prefer very clear preconditions >on loops and do not like exits at all. Too bad that almost no compilers are >clever enough to remove the additional overhead from this approach .... > >But the important thing is that the above algorithm is not at all the same >as what I presented. I did not intend to start a thread on what is or is not >the best sorting algorithm, but rather to present an example of a simple >non-finite-state machine case where many people wlil find the goto clearer. > >I trust that Robert Martin is not under the impression that the code above >is equivalent computationally (i.e. same sequence of comparisons) as what >I presented! > I prefer sort D ascending no flag, no goto, no exit, no loop, and no chance of using the wrong comparison operator. It does have the overhead of a library call; but it is always available. ------------------ Rick Smith e-mail: < ricksmith@aiservices.com >