Hi Sam, On 3/20/07, Sam Schetterer <samthecppman@gmail.com> 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 interest. 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. Best regards, Stjepan