Talk:Sorting algorithms/Tree sort on a linked list: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "I don't understand this task. Tree sort traditionally means loading the elements into a (new) binary search tree data structure, and then reading the elements back out. I don'...") |
(Benchmarks? Just say no!) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I don't understand this task. Tree sort traditionally means loading the elements into a (new) binary search tree data structure, and then reading the elements back out. I don't understand what it means to "tree sort them inplace" in a linked list. --[[User:Spoon!|Spoon!]] ([[User talk:Spoon!|talk]]) 03:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC) |
I don't understand this task. Tree sort traditionally means loading the elements into a (new) binary search tree data structure, and then reading the elements back out. I don't understand what it means to "tree sort them inplace" in a linked list. --[[User:Spoon!|Spoon!]] ([[User talk:Spoon!|talk]]) 03:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC) |
||
The proposed task talks about performance. This is a Bad Idea because it's next to impossible to compare performance between systems (different CPU speeds, different memory bandwidths, different loading patterns, etc.) Talking about performance strongly encourages people to try to “optimise” their implementations, which tends to make them significantly less readable and less idiomatic. Finally, actually measuring performance fairly and accurately is hard; there are lies, damned lies, and benchmarks. –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] ([[User talk:Dkf|talk]]) 10:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 10:49, 11 May 2014
I don't understand this task. Tree sort traditionally means loading the elements into a (new) binary search tree data structure, and then reading the elements back out. I don't understand what it means to "tree sort them inplace" in a linked list. --Spoon! (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The proposed task talks about performance. This is a Bad Idea because it's next to impossible to compare performance between systems (different CPU speeds, different memory bandwidths, different loading patterns, etc.) Talking about performance strongly encourages people to try to “optimise” their implementations, which tends to make them significantly less readable and less idiomatic. Finally, actually measuring performance fairly and accurately is hard; there are lies, damned lies, and benchmarks. –Donal Fellows (talk) 10:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)