I don’t know at the moment but the algorithm exists simply because every sorting algorithm we know about has a quantitative speed metric assigned to it called the Big Oh. Keep in mind that my claim is that we know how to define the fastest algorithm which is different from the claim that the field has found the fastest sorting algorithm that will ever exist.
Either way for the fastest algorithm out of the set or sorting algorithms that are known.... Most likely it’s a family of algorithms that share the same speed metric of O(N). There may be an algorithm or several algorithms that are faster. Look it up, you might find it.
What I can guarantee you can’t find is the best design pattern or style of programming. There is no theory here let alone a definition for “best.”
It’s obvious your question is trying to take the conversation in some other direction. Let me try to guess it. Your probably going to talk about other intrinsic downfalls and costs to sorting outside of the speed metric like memory or the domain limitation for O(N) sorting algos. To which I respond memory has nothing to do with the speed of the algorithm and is off topic from my claim. We know the fastest algorithm(s) by definition, because the theory of what is faster and what is not is fully fleshed out.
The theory on which is the best algorithm to use in a problem given the speed and memory cost is something we don’t have a theory for yet, hence the usage of best practices, which further proves my point. This is where you conflate things, you didn’t separate aspects of areas described by theory and aspects not yet described by theory. You mistakenly lumped everything together.
Hopefully I anticipated your actions correctly and you are the one who is taught a lesson here rather then your intention of teaching me something via your trap question.