> It has objectively superior asymptotic performance in certain relatively niche workloads. However, its constant time factor is iffy due to all the pointer following and calculations you have to do for random accesses. And the benchmark results in the README show this clearly -- both the strengths and the weaknesses.
I got that impression after going through a fair bit of the README. My feeling is neither the post title nor the introductory statements in the README reflected these very relevant qualifications to the claim of "An Array with Constant Time Access and Fast Insertion and Deletion", and putting the onus on the reader to dig through the whole thing to discover this is either naïve or a bit disingenuous. As others have noted, and as I implied in my comment, there is in fact existing literature that captures the particular ideas and tradeoffs in this implementation - Tiered Vectors. I believe the author has a duty to cite that up front and prominently in the spirit of honest academic discourse.
What "academic discourse"? This is a datastructure implementation with some documentation in a Github repo, not a submission to a scientific journal. You're insinuating a level of rigor that is completely unwarranted.
Just lean back, relax, and accept that you overreacted a bit in your original post. It's not the end of the world to admit that.
Why would the author need to add qualifications to the title? That is literally and exactly what the data structure is.
Also, I don't think the author claimed it's "objectively superior." It has objectively superior asymptotic performance in certain relatively niche workloads. However, its constant time factor is iffy due to all the pointer following and calculations you have to do for random accesses. And the benchmark results in the README show this clearly -- both the strengths and the weaknesses.
Actually, your whole train of thought around the claims in the README is puzzling to me. You seem to think they're grandiose and over the top, but the README seems mostly explanatory to me. What statements in there do you think ought to be qualified, specifically, and how?
If you want upvotes next time, explain in detail what claims you object to, and why. This comment I'm afraid did not add much to the discussion, at least for me.