On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 8:17 PM, Isiah Meadows <isiahmead...@gmail.com> wrote: > In my honest opinion, there's not much reason to just require the sort to be > stable. Some engines have done this in the past, and the spec technically > allows it. At this point, stable sorts are about as fast as unstable ones, > both in theory and practice (wasn't the case 10 years ago IIRC).
I think you meant "to not just require", yes? As in, you think the spec *should* require .sort() to be stable? On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Vic99999 <vic99...@yandex.ru> wrote: > Stable sort is useful sometimes, but it is possible to implement it in js. Most things in the JS standard library are possible in userland code, so that's not a useful rebuttal to anything by itself. The question is whether it's worth requiring that the standard sort be stable. Stable sort is never *bad* - there are no use-cases where a stable sort gives the wrong answer while an unstable sort is correct, but the opposite is definitely true. The only question is how much slower/more expensiver stable sorting is than unstable sorting, and whether that cost is sufficient to outweigh the usefulness of a stable sort. ~TJ _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
