Timsort vs some others

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On 12/19/2012 06:00 AM, deadalnix wrote:
> Unless you have the data somehow presorted, or you get them one by one, other
> sort are faster.

I was probably imprecise with my use of the word "scales".  Obviously other 
algorithms have superior O() for the general case, but if memory use also scales 
with n, you are surely going to run into some kind of performance issues as n 
increases -- whereas if memory use is O(1), not so.

Again, I imagine that was a more urgent issue in 1981 ...