Talk:Sorting algorithms/Tree sort on a linked list

I don't understand this task

I don't understand this task. Tree sort traditionally means loading the elements into a (new) binary search tree data structure, and then reading the elements back out. I don't understand what it means to "tree sort them inplace" in a linked list. --Spoon! (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The proposed task talks about performance. This is a Bad Idea because it's next to impossible to compare performance between systems (different CPU speeds, different memory bandwidths, different loading patterns, etc.) Talking about performance strongly encourages people to try to “optimise” their implementations, which tends to make them significantly less readable and less idiomatic. Finally, actually measuring performance fairly and accurately is hard; there are lies, damned lies, and benchmarks. –Donal Fellows (talk) 10:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

And the proposed sample text is ridiculously long; there's also no meaningful output. (Just printing some metadata about the supposed performance is insufficient, as it does not check that things are correct. Wrong “solutions” can be incredibly fast.) This whole task needs major revision (and soon!) or I'll have to consider deleting it entirely. –Donal Fellows (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. --Paddy3118 (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thirded.   -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

why must the input be so much work to retrieve?

Couldn't the author of this task download the whole she-bang (the complete text) and uploaded it to just   one   file on Rosetta Code?   That would make it a lot simpler than to have each programmer (code writer) to go through all the work of downloading each of the four books and multiple chapters.   This is, I hope, a task to show a tree sort on a linked list, not a scavenger hunt (or quest).   -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)