Talk:Sorting algorithms/Sleep sort
Designing for failure?
Sleep gives a minimum duration to sleep, but not a maximum. This algorithm would thus sort incorrectly on a heavily loaded system. I cannot see a way to design a way around this without cheating on the algorithm. --Rdm 15:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- This is kinda just for fun. I wouldn't worry too much about it. --Mwn3d 15:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Why the requirement that the integers be non-negative?
Does this mean the programs should check if any integers are non-negative?
What if the program can handle negative integers?
Negative numbers aren't that much of a strange animal to be sorted, and I can't see that any programmer will strain their back coding for such beasts. The little I know of most programmers, weak of back, strong of mind. -- Gerard Schildberger 19:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- This task not only specifies the end result -- that the numbers be sorted -- but the procedure for accomplishing that. Specifying the procedure is, as a general rule, bad practice, since the implementations are almost invariably inferior to what you get when you simply specify the desired results and consequences. Mis-specifying is done here on rosettacode, sometimes, I think for the humor value. Here, for example, a negative integer would require a negative delay -- the code would have to finish waiting before it started waiting. --Rdm 21:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)