I don't think you fully read the post I was replying to. I was just saying that that poster's argument against changing the sorting algorithm was misguided.

Quote:

> will be reviewed and tested by 200 people before it reaches production

I was only saying that this is a bad argument for any simple-ish sorting algorithm.

(Granted, if you're doing super-complicated sorting algos with fallbacks for different sizes, heurestics for detecting semi-sorted input, etc. you might want something more sophisticated than trivial property-based checking.)