News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Trying Haskell by merijnv on Sunday April 10, 2011 @09:32AM (#2429443)
Not to mention that Haskell's sort function is actually quite a bit more complex than the stereotypical "quicksort" example shown.
Re:Trying Haskell by danieldk on Sunday April 10, 2011 @09:43AM (#2429456)
For reference, Data.List.sort in GHC: http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/7.0.2/html/libraries/base-4....

It's still short and sweet ;).

Re:Trying Haskell by aristidb on Sunday April 10, 2011 @09:37AM (#2429447)
C++'s std::sort in turn is a lot more complex than the quicksort example shown.
Re:Trying Haskell by CJefferson on Sunday April 10, 2011 @12:40PM (#2429797)
To be fair, that is because it is a carefully tuned combination of 3 sort routines (quicksort, heapsort, insertion sort), and also optimisations to avoid unnecessary checks for pointers reaching the end of arrays where they can be avoided.

I would be impressed if a sort which used the same 3 combined techniques could be faster.

(Of course, there might be better sorts, such as TimSort, but that's a change of algorithm, not language).

Re:Trying Haskell by Peaker on Sunday April 10, 2011 @02:20PM (#2430025)
I think timsort is trying to optimize on comparison counts, because comparisons might call back into Python code, which is expensive. Other sorting algorithms optimize different operations.