> I can't even imagine what can be a technical limitation to break sorting on something what worked for more than a decade. The default sort (which is reverse

> I can't even imagine what can be a technical limitation to break sorting on something what worked for more than a decade. The default sort (which is reverse chronological) is more likely cached than chronological order. It could be that it's not really about if it could be done but assuming this is really a good-faith problem it could be that the chip crunch made optimising performance a priority and removing effectively-uncacheble (or alternatively space-consuming) chronological order did remove some pressure.