r8 my sort algorithm /tech/ i call it ubersoftsort

>>57454014
How do I sort negative numbers? :(

>>57454064
Add absolute value of minimum element to all, sort, subtract

pretty much a synchronous sleep sort

File: C__Data_Users_DefApps_AppData_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved Images_1478112985127.gif (4MB, 427x240px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 427x240px

>>57454014
Mine's better:

def sorting(array):
    return sorted(array)

def main():
    array = [2, 3, -1, 1, 5, 4, 0, -2]
    new_array = sorting(array)
    print(new_array)

if __name__ == "__main__":
    main()

>>57454185
Not OP but you're more of a faggot than OP.

File: ubersoftv3.png (58KB, 493x695px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 493x695px

here's my final version of ubersoftsort.

O(n*k) its the best algorithm out there right now.

i'm very proud of myself, it can even sort negative numbers.

>>57454286
>best algorithm out there right now
Not really. Most of the times k is going to be close to n which leads to O(n^2).

heapsort best sort

>2016
>not using sleepsort
Are you all Pajeets or what?

>using python 2.x when python 3.x is a thing

Just looking at it, I think this has a bug.

>>57454014
Nice sleepsort you retard
>>57454469
No, it's just sleepsort

>>57454286
Comparing it to randomized quicksort you use 2 times more memory, and is only faster if the range of values is smaler than log(list size) wich is rare in a real world scenario.
i should probably be comparing it to counting or radix sort but im not remembering them very well atm.

File: variable names.png (78KB, 828x763px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 828x763px

>>57454014
That's nothing, rate THIS

>>57454612
>Displaying tabs as arrows
>Javascript
>Write once shitty code
cancer/10.

>>57454612
>no spacing anywhere
kys yourself

>while true

Fucking kill yourself

>>57454014
>>57454286

That's going to be a really inefficient sort if there is a huge difference between the largest and smallest items.

For example:

item = [2, 3, 1, 9999999, 2, 7]

is going to take a crazy amount of time, relative to a more efficient algorithm.

>>57454868
I think you can optimize it by giving multidigit numbers a higher substraction.

>>57454658
>kill yourself yourself

>>57454014
>not in-place
>not stable
>not O(nlogn)

I rate 1/10. The 1 is only because it sorts.

>>57455370
Do you even know what being stable means?

import random

items = [2, 3, 1, 5, 2, 7]

sorted=False
while not sorted:
  sorted=True
  random.shuffle(items)
  
  for i in range(len(items)-1):
    if items[i]>items[i+1]:
      sorted=False
      break

print items

>>57458753
It works

>>57454612
And now I'm blind. Thanks anon!

>>57454612
ARROWS