From: Stjepan Rajko (stipe_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-21 03:46:24
On 3/20/07, Sam Schetterer <samthecppman_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Hi. I am just wondering if there is still interest in the library, because
> I have not recieved any comments on the library in the last two days, no
> posts at all, while I have made multiple posts, some with very important
> ideas in them.
I've been sort of following the discussions on sorting, so I'll try to
share some thoughts on what I noticed. To me, the main themes that
stood out were that
1) there is quite a bit of good sorting functionality available in
the standard libraries
2) the benefits of added / alternative implementations are questionable.
I think it's great that you are putting effort into trying to develop
something for the community, and if that "something" has to be sorting
then it might be crucial to put time into clearly showing how your
planned contribution addresses the above two items. If a lot of the
previous discussion contained things like "I am skeptical that an
alternative implementation would be faster, simpler to use, etc.",
then chances are that people of that opinion won't be inclined to
discuss an alternative implementation unless you can clearly show that
there is, in fact, some potential in it.
So, if you take into account all the discussion points that have been
posted so far, take some time to address them, and come back with "I
have implemented xyz-sort and tested it on both killer and random
sequences and found it faster than the standard implementation by 30%
on average on two different platforms", or "I have found a fully
portable way to express sorting criteria in an incredibly concise,
never before imagined way, here's an example", it might peak some more
Perhaps you've already done that and I missed it... or perhaps people
are just busy with other things :-). Or perhaps it's getting too late
and I'm just rambling about things that I shouldn't be rambling
about... on that note, I should call it a night.