Subject: Re: [boost] [sort] Re: [review] Formal review period for Sort library begins today, November 10, and ends Wednesday, November 19
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-10 11:29:11
Peter Dimov-2 wrote
> We determine whether the library works by testing it, and we determine the
> library's performance by timing it. We're empiricists.
> Of course, if Steven wants to provide formal proofs of correctness and
> complexity requirements, that would be very nice of him; I just don't
> it's fair to demand it.
+1 In our context, testing trumps proof. This is because all such "proofs"
count operations of some sort. And operations (e.g. compare, relink,
dereference, etc) vary between algorithms.
Also I agree that we should stick to our our stated standards.
PS - I'm was sort of disappointed that the Postman's sort wasn't
referred to. It was published many years ago and has been cited
numerous times. It has several times won a contest held by
Microsoft Research for the world's fastest sort. To prove it, I have two
medals hanging on my door knob (each with the name spelled
wrong - in different ways).
-- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/review-Formal-review-period-for-Sort-library-begins-today-November-10-and-ends-Wednesday-November-19-tp4668891p4668928.html Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk