<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>NeatSort - A practical adaptive algorithm · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1407.6183/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1407.6183/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>NeatSort - A practical adaptive algorithm — mentioned by Robotbeat</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20274050</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1407.6183:20274050</guid><pubDate>Tue, 25 Jun 2019 13:43:06 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;For many classes of algorithms, the speed-up is actually better than Moore&amp;#x27;s Law. I don&amp;#x27;t think it&amp;#x27;s really an exaggeration to say that optimization of the programs can lead to 100x performance improvements. Sorting algorithms, for instance, improved dramatically from the first computer algorithms in the early 50s (yay Bubblesort) to QuickSort in the 1960s to newer algorithms in the 1980s/90s like Melsort, and even algorithms being written today, like Neatsort: https://arxiv.org/abs/1407.6183 And the thing about algorithms is that for certain problems and large n, they can quickly blow up.…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1407.6183/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.DS</category></item></channel></rss>
