qsort [] = []
qsort (x:xs) = qsort [y | y <- xs, y < x] ++ [x] ++ qsort [y | y <- xs, y >= x]

BB>qsort [] = []
BB>qsort (x:xs) = qsort [y | y <- xs, y < x] ++ [x] ++ qsort [y | y <- xs, y >= x]
BB>

http://www.informit.com/articles/printerfriendly/1407357
You know what I don't like? Emperors clad in boxers. Consider:

qsort []     = []
qsort (x:xs) = qsort (filter (< x) xs) ++ [x]
               ++ qsort (filter (>= x) xs)

Code like the above has been used up and down the tubes to demonstrate the superiority of functional languages. It's a functional-style quicksort written in Haskell that can be understood, at least according to some, without any prior exposure. First line: qsort of the empty list is the empty list. Second line (broken to fit in a narrow space): qsort for a list starting with x followed by some more xs is a concatenation ('++') of three lists: all stuff in xs that's smaller than x sorted, x itself, and all stuff in xs that's greater than or equal to x, again sorted. Try defining quicksort in two lines in your Blub language!

As much as I like Haskell, I look at that example with a mix of admiration and indignation, same as I'd look at an example illustrating C's virtues by means of a buffer overrun exploit. Both cases inspire awe, but I think they illustrate something bad rather than something good, and I could never bring myself to write or use that kind of trick.

There are a few things about qsort that don't quite cut the mustard. For starters, qsort is not really quicksort. Quicksort, as defined by Hoare in his seminal paper [8], is an in-place algorithm. Hoare's in-place partition is his paper's main contribution and a quintessential part of quicksort. qsort is not in-place, so it could be at best considered an exercise inspired by quicksort. (And not a great exercise at that. It does so much ancillary work it's not even funny—did you think that those two passes through the list and all those concatenations come for free?) Second, qsort makes a patently bad choice of pivot by selecting the first element of the sequence, thus nicely guaranteeing quadratic performance for almost sorted data. And the thing is, in reality, input data is seldom really random. It might have been sorted at some point, then augmented with additional elements, to be sorted again later. Choosing a random pivot is the correct solution, but you see, that would make qsort quite a lot longer than three lines, because selecting one element at random from a singly-linked list is a non-trivial undertaking.
...

qsort [] = []
qsort xs = qsort (filter (< pivot) xs) ++ qsort (filter (>= pivot) xs)
  where pivot = xs !! (length xs `div` 2)

It is important to know in advance the maximum number of locations used by nest; in order to ensure that the number of segments postponed at any one time never exceeds the logarithm (base 2) of the number of items to be sorted, it is sufficient to adopt the rule of always postponing the processing of larger of of the two segments.