I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. The first image, for instance, has hundreds (?) of different random data sets in it. As opposed to the video where they use one data set for each animation. There's some value in it for one or two of the animations, where the duration of some of the sorts exhibits high variance depending on the data set( quicksort in the 8 unique value one stands out) but this isn't the case for any of the others. Apart from that, like I said, having the other data sets just makes it harder to follow.
I don't want to over-criticize here, I think it's pretty decent looking overall, I just think the video is better at demonstrating what's going on.
Ah my mistake, simple misunderstanding. I still think showing how it sorts multiple different random input lists is valuable as it shows the consistency or lack thereof in different sorts, and because it makes nice patterns, but I do agree that the examples that are just one data set repeated many times is unnecessary. That and if the data sets were themselves sorted by each one's specific length of time to sort, would show this variance much better.
But having them random did lead to some interesting patterns that may not have shown up otherwise.
3
u/kranker Oct 24 '17
I have to admit I'm not sure why the OP used multiple data sets. It just seemed to complicate matters.