Talk:Double bubble sort

message: Actually, can I recommend deletion?  I concur that this "algorithm" is simply a minor implementation variation on the traditional insertion sort algorithm, and as commented by flatline not a particularly good one (apart from anything else, it only works for integers or similar types, due to the assumption of availability of an XOR operator).  And once this has been cleared out of the way, the page can be redirected to cocktail sort, which has more right to the name.  JulesH 20:59, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that deletion is appropriate. The meat of this algorithm is that take a list that is presumed sorted (at the beginning you start with a list of length 1 which is trivially sorted) and then shift the values up until you've opened up the position for the next item. This is the definition of Insertion sort. Whether the item is stored in a temp variable or shifted down as the other items are shifted up is an implementation detail that does not change the fact that the algorithm here is Insertion sort. --Flatline 19:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: If there's such a thing as a "plain vanilla" bubble sort, then it's the one described there.  A very different algorithm from this. -- Smjg 14:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Noone said the algorithm was faster. If it is the same as insertion then rewrite insertion to use the same number of variables. It is a simple test. When you use a vary small processor you may find that saving variables is very important.--84.9.195.229 22:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Nope not at all. Rewrite the insertion sort with the same number of variables as this you will have gone someway to show this is the same alogorithm, but you haven't do that. What you don't understand is what an algorithm is, you seem to think it is a program, it isn't. Alogrithmn pre date computing by a long way.  Thos of us that have add to work on small machines like PIC, Z8 and other stuff you children haven't heard of are often grateful for a way of doing things which uses less memory. EVen if it is one byte. The test is simple write insertion sort with the same number of variables and you can redirect, but Wikipedia is not a place to push your POV. In this case the test is simple go and do it or go away, do keep crying "my mummy said"--84.9.195.103 13:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I was to implement insertion sort with the same number of variables as "this" then I'd have what you call "double bubble sort".  I do not believe that an implementation using XOR swapping becomes a different algorithm.  It really depends on what level of abstraction you take to be essential for insertion sort.  Also, calling someone a "child" while posting as an anon is not very mature.  —   UTSRelativity (Talk)  14:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was commenting on my venrability rather than his youth. What test for difference do you propose?--84.9.195.103 18:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Then what are you? You do not seem to know anything about computing especially alogrithmns.--84.9.210.183 11:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Go on list it do. I've demostrated that it has a minimum number variables that is smaller than the insertion sort, therefore it is a different algorithmn. --87.75.130.47 02:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: How would that change the argument. It doesn't but it looks like you try anything, any sign of your resume?--87.75.130.47 20:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominate for deletion? 

message: Searching and Sorting mentions the "Cocktail Shaker Sort" and of course Bubble Sort, but in no case mentions "double bubble".  It would appear that this is either (or both) non-WP:V or WP:NOR.  But most of you knew that already :-) -- Gnetwerker 20:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knuth