Re: The ultimate luxury ?

From: Jesse F. Hughes (jesse_at_phiwumbda.org)
Date: 08/02/04 

Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 15:07:14 +0200

jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:

> In article <87ekmplr70.fsf@phiwumbda.org>,
> jesse@phiwumbda.org (Jesse F. Hughes) wrote:
>>jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
>>
>>> But that isn't sorting. That is collating. The ref field contains
>>> an ordered list of addresses or you can call them names. The code
>>> then takes the first name on the list, calls other code to retrieve
>>> the set of bits associated with that name and dumps the bit set
>>> into a file. The code then takes the next name on the list, retrieves
>>> the set of bits associated with that name, and appends the set
>>> to the end of the first set of bits. This is not sorting. It's
>>> actually not even a collation or a merge.
>>
>>My use of the word "sort" is perfectly consistent with the FOLDOC
>>definition found at
>>
>>http://foldoc.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?query=sort&action=Search.
>>
>>My definition in terms of imposing a linear order on a set is abstract
>>and corresponds not to the algorithm of sorting, but to the final line
>>of the definition below. It is not literally the same as this
>>definition, but it is the relevant approximation for us (since we're
>>not concerned with the algorithm that does the sorting but only with
>>the output.
>
> WE may not be concerned with the algorithm, but I sure as hell am
> concerned with the algorithm. It had never occurred to me
> that the CS dudes of today would not know what sort means.

What I mean by "not being concerned with the algorithm" is that it is
irrelevant for this discussion. The whole thing started over Relf's
annoying subject changes and the difference between a newsclient that
sorts/collates/flimflums on References header versus one that uses
subject header for the primary key.

The way you phrase your concern ("CS dudes of today [do] not know what
sort means") is a touch over the top. What you mean is that the
terminology has evolved and changed (assuming that your terminology
was ever commonplace, for which I must take your word). As far as I
can see, there's no reason to have a special term "sort" meaning "sort
alphabetically or numerically" and use a distinct term "collate" for
all other arrangements of data according to some order on a field of
the data. The distinction isn't particularly useful to me.

> <snip ref>
>
>>It is a free online source and it's certainly possible that the
>>entries show the bias of its contributors.
>
> You might consider that they haven't included terms used in the
> biz. I'll have to ask the guys about that FOLDOC.

Depends, I guess, on what biz you mean. I personally don't care much
about what terms programmers in the field use. I care much more what
terms researchers use. I believe FOLDOC is a better reference for
computer science theorists and researchers than for programmers in the
business world.

In any case, if the programmers that created my newsclient count as
"in the biz", then they use the term sort as I do. But it's an open
source project largely maintained by a bunch of academics (I think),
so that's probably not a fair test. 

-- 
Jesse Hughes
               "Depression hits more people than thought."  
               --headline in Lexington, KY newspaper, as reported on
               NPR's Morning Edition