Re^2: Better sorting than the ST

I have no idea whether this comes from APL, I’m afraid. I originally figured out this approach on my own and only afterwards learned that it’s been known in the Perl community for at least as long as the ST. (Oddly, it does not seem to get promoted much, despite its considerable advantages in the general case.) I have no idea about its history beyond that.

Makeshifts last the longest.

Comment on Re^2: Better sorting than the ST

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^7: Perl is dying (better sorting than the ST) by diotalevi (Canon) on Jan 10, 2007 at 00:57 UTC
It is one level of indirection harder and perhaps doesn't have as many "cool points." ⠤⠤ ⠙⠊⠕⠞⠁⠇⠑⠧⠊	[reply]
Re^4: Better sorting than the ST by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Jan 11, 2007 at 21:03 UTC
I admit I never thought about the former. I did think of the latter, and it’s consistent with one of the weaknesses I see in the Perl community (namely the tendency to pick clever and shorter-looking solutions), which is why I will now often point out this approach when people talk about the ST. Hmm. Interesting thought. It won’t stop me from advocating this approach, but it’s a much more complete explanation of the ST’s prevalence than I had before. Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply]
Re^8: Perl is dying (better sorting than the ST) by parv (Parson) on Jan 10, 2007 at 06:12 UTC
By "It", did you mean Aristotle's method or GRT\|ST?	[reply]
Re^9: Perl is dying (better sorting than the ST) by diotalevi (Canon) on Jan 10, 2007 at 06:14 UTC
Sorting the indexes is one step removed from sorting the elements directly. ⠤⠤ ⠙⠊⠕⠞⠁⠇⠑⠧⠊	[reply]