Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery
From: allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR/AA)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Subject: Re: Combsort algorithm
Message-ID: <1991May9.220533.6243@NCoast.ORG>
Date: 9 May 91 22:05:33 GMT
References: <1991May3.201243.7959@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <1991May6.155148.1201@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <231b3678.673637576@fergvax>
Reply-To: allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR/AA)
Followup-To: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast)
Lines: 22

As quoted from <231b3678.673637576@fergvax> by 231b3678@fergvax.unl.edu (Phil Dietz):
+---------------
| you know what, comb-sort beat qsort by a heinous time!  I sorted
| a list of ints (100000 of them).  I used the comb-sort routine directly
| from the article, and I used qsort routine that comes with Lattice.
|  
|    sorting the same list of 100000 elements:   qsort  165.3 secs
|                                                 comb   53.2 secs
|  
| This either shows that the comb-sort is FAST, or the Lattice Qsort is SLOW!
+---------------

If Lattice's qsort() is anything like the one in the Unix standard C library,
it's a pretty good proof that any algorithm can be implemented to run as slow
as you like.  :-) :-(

++Brandon
-- 
Me: Brandon S. Allbery			  Ham: KB8JRR/AA  10m,6m,2m,220,440,1.2
Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG		       (restricted HF at present)
Delphi: ALLBERY				 AMPR: kb8jrr.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88]
uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery       KB8JRR @ WA8BXN.OH