You get the choice of many sorting routines, including:
Timsort (stable)
Quicksort
Merge sort (stable)
In-place merge sort (not stable)
Shellsort
Binary insertion sort
Heapsort
Selection sort (this is really only here for comparison)
Grail sort (stable)
Sqrt Sort (stable, based on Grail sort, also by Andrey Astrelin).He's not unique in this viewpoint. Quoting jwz: "As I've said before, if you work for Facebook, you should quit; it's the only morally defensible thing for you to do."
> his entire software stack depends ...
That sounds like the Mr. Gotcha meme: https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/ . Again referring to jwz, his nightclub is on Facebook and Instagram because it's not economically viable to avoid them. ... Gotcha!
Similarly, it's hard to avoid all software which doesn't have influence from the big tech companies. I used https://github.com/swenson/sort ('Sorting routine implementations in "template" C"), and even this little indy package has contributors from Google Inc and the main developer worked at Google for a year.
DeVault's working on a new programming language, Hare. You could view that as having the long-term unstated goal of escaping unethical companies.
I recently did my own benchmarking on various qsort()s since I was trying to implement a faster one. The various BSDs and macOS qsort() are all faster than glibc at sorting integers and they don't allocate memory:
https://github.com/ludocode/pottery/tree/master/examples/pot...
Of course sorting is much faster if you can inline the comparator so a templated sort algorithm is always going to be faster than a function that takes a function pointer. But this does not require C++; it can be done in plain C. The templated intro_sort from Pottery (linked above) is competitive with std::sort, as are the excellent swensort/sort templates: