I don't think the 90's developers could have forseen that 2ms on boot would be huge for cloud serverless compute like lamdba.

True, but a lesson we frequently have to learn over and over again is that the code is in software in widespread use, the only valid values for collection sizes are 0 and N -> ∞.

> the only valid values for collection sizes are 0 and N -> ∞.

Of course there are valid values below that...

If they were designing to a collection size of N -> ∞ then they shouldn't have used Insertion Sort either then, because it is O(n²) in the worst case.

True, but make that valid value at least something like 1 million.

It's trivial to start with something that gets human input and someone, somewhere, decides to plug the thing into something else that generates that input.

And we all know that if computers are good at something, it's doing a lot of small things millions of times.

On an OS whose only gimmick is that it's fast and stable? Idk, maybe they could've.

Besides there's little reason for any codebase of any kind of ever contain bubble sort (except for an academic one, showing it as an example of a bad one). We're talking 20 years ago, not 2000 years ago, the basic sorting algorithms were pretty well researched and established by then.