Reddit Sort: The World's Least Efficient Algorithm

OH. MY. GOD. The absolute AUDACITY of this algorithm! 💅 It's claiming to sort arrays in O(0) time which is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE in computer science! The secret? It just does NOTHING and expects the array to already be sorted! This is like claiming you can clean your entire apartment in zero seconds if it's already spotless! The sheer LAZINESS of that 'pass' statement is sending me into orbit! It's the programming equivalent of showing up to a group project and taking credit while doing absolutely nothing! ✨

Looking at this code is like finding ancient hieroglyphics written by a mathematician who was simultaneously having a stroke and an existential crisis. The poor soul tasked with porting this Pascal monstrosity will need a PhD in numerical methods, a bottle of strong whiskey, and possibly an exorcist. What we're witnessing here is some unholy signal processing algorithm with nested loops, mysterious polynomial calculations, and variables named with the creativity of someone who ran out of coffee three days ago. The comments? Non-existent. Documentation? A joke. The only thing more terrifying than reading this code is having to maintain it. Whoever wrote this clearly subscribed to the "job security through obscurity" design pattern. Future archaeologists will carbon-date this Pascal code and conclude our civilization deserved its downfall.

OH. MY. GOD. The AUDACITY of using a WHOLE INTEGER for a measly 1-10 counter when you could stuff those bits into the dark corners of other variables! 💅 Embedded engineers are LITERALLY having heart palpitations right now. In their world, every byte is sacred, every bit a precious child that must be optimized to within an inch of its life. Meanwhile, you're over here WASTING 24+ PERFECTLY GOOD BITS like some kind of memory billionaire throwing cash from a helicopter! The sheer memory gluttony. The optimization blasphemy. I can't even.

Left side: a perfectly normal binary tree data structure where each node has at most two children. Right side: literally the same tree but with a pride flag background and suddenly it's "non-binary." The punchline works on multiple levels - it's both a play on computer science terminology and gender identity terminology. The tree didn't change at all, just its presentation. Kinda like how we've been using the same algorithms for decades but keep rebranding them as revolutionary breakthroughs.

Tech interviews in a nutshell. Interviewer wants you to implement a sorting algorithm from scratch, probably expecting some elegant quicksort or merge sort with O(n log n) complexity. Meanwhile, you just use the built-in sort method that every sane developer would use in real life. The interviewer's face says it all – horrified that you'd dare use a practical solution instead of reinventing the wheel to prove you memorized algorithms from 1962. Pro tip: The built-in sort is optimized by people smarter than both of you. But good luck explaining that during the awkward silence that follows.

The sins of the parent codebase are visited upon the child. That poor kid was doomed from the moment mom decided arrays should start at 1 instead of 0. It's like being born into a family that puts milk before cereal – fundamentally wrong at the core level. Some programming traumas just get passed down through generations, and starting arrays at 1 is the equivalent of digital hereditary trauma. The kid never stood a chance.