this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2026
92 points (100.0% liked)

Programmer Humor

33288 readers
1004 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
anzo@programming.dev
Feyter@programming.dev
BurningTurtle@programming.dev
pylapp@programming.dev
92
ICantBelieveItCanSort Sort (piefed.blahaj.zone)
submitted 2 weeks ago by queerlilhayseed@piefed.blahaj.zone to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I learned about this from Matt Parker's Stand-Up Maths channel. It was originally conceived as a counterexample, a sorting algorithm that was obviously broken, but it does actually sort correctly. The algorithm:

for i = 1 to n do  
	for j = 1 to n do  
		if A[i] < A[j] then  
			swap A[i] and A[j]

It has a few quirks (like j accessing elements outside of i's range, and the A[i] < A[j] comparator being backward) that should break it, but they all work together to make the algorithm correctly (if inefficiently) sort the input.

paper describing the algorithm in more detail.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Sort of a “two wrongs that accidentally make a right” maneuver.

not exactly (if i understand it correctly). the first swap of a pair, where i < j, basically does not matter, since the same pair will be revisited one more time later with switched values (i = 8, j = 9 does not matter. i = 9, j = 8 does) and that is when the actual sorting happens. that is why the condition is if a[i] < a[j] then swap, which may seem countreintuitive, but we are comparing the values in the reversed order compared to most of the sorting algorithms.

the i < j part can be seen as the part that is handled in bubble sort by making the inner loop progressively smaller as the array is partially sorted (not the same elements, but the same amount of work, sort of). it is just ignored here, which is obviously bad for any kind of efficiency, but it allows for that super simple code.