Re: C Sharp sorting considered superior to C by an order of magnitude

On Feb 25, 6:47 am, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 25, 8:31 pm, Daniel Kraft <d...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
spinoza1111 wrote:
Just for the sake of it, why did you only implement O(n^2) algorithms

Quicksort isn't O(n^2) it is O(n) for random data, and the O(n^2) case
is detectable O(n): so a fast quicksort is O(n).

I think you mean O(N log N). For random data, a comparison based
sorting algorithm can't break N log N as a lower bound.