Timsort vs some others

[deadalnix]

On Tuesday, 18 December 2012 at 15:41:28 UTC, Joseph Rushton 
Wakeling wrote:
> On 12/18/2012 04:30 PM, bearophile wrote:
>> Why?
>
> Because if you have to allocate O(n) memory for another 
> algorithm, that might either give you a memory hit that you 
> can't take (less likely these days, to be fair), or simply take 
> a large amount of time to allocate that degrades the 
> performance.
>
> Happy to learn if my guess is wrong, though.

Unless you have the data somehow presorted, or you get them one 
by one, other sort are faster.