The program goes through the collection of numbers and prints each one after a delay of milliseconds equal to that number: “Print the number 20 after a 20 millisecond delay. Print the number 5 after a 5 millisecond delay. Print the number 100 after a 100 millisecond delay… etc…” effectively sorting the collection because the numbers will be printed in order from smallest to largest.
This is a clever (but impractical) way to sort a collection, because it does not require comparing any of the elements of the collection.
The output is sorted due to the fact that for each number, a timer is started that prints out the number after waiting a number of milliseconds equal to said number.
Therefore, 1 is printed first after delaying for 1 millisecond, 5 is printed second after 5 milliseconds etc.
They are launched sequentially, but run simultaneously, yes - at least some of them. And they run concurrently but not in parallel - using a single execution context, there is only a single thread, so no parallelism exist.
I’m dumb, can someone ELI5 please?
The program goes through the collection of numbers and prints each one after a delay of milliseconds equal to that number: “Print the number 20 after a 20 millisecond delay. Print the number 5 after a 5 millisecond delay. Print the number 100 after a 100 millisecond delay… etc…” effectively sorting the collection because the numbers will be printed in order from smallest to largest.
This is a clever (but impractical) way to sort a collection, because it does not require comparing any of the elements of the collection.
Well, if you are comparing
x + atoyandx + btoyand then both toy', theny''and so on, then are you really not comparingatob?The output is sorted due to the fact that for each number, a timer is started that prints out the number after waiting a number of milliseconds equal to said number.
Therefore, 1 is printed first after delaying for 1 millisecond, 5 is printed second after 5 milliseconds etc.
So all items in the array are launched simultaneuously and ran in parallel instead of sequentially?
They are launched sequentially, but run simultaneously, yes - at least some of them. And they run concurrently but not in parallel - using a single execution context, there is only a single thread, so no parallelism exist.
Perfectly explained, thank you!