[jeffreyg]

I appreciate your post, but I wish you would've addressed his examples of when linked lists are less efficient instead of responding to the link bait title and calling it stupid advice. Your post was informative in its own right, though, so thanks for that.

[rayiner]

The title wasn't link bait. The article said: never used linked lists ever. That's stupid advice.

His examples aren't bad. But they're focused on traversal. Of course use an array when you're mostly traversing linearly. But linked lists are very versatile. Deep down in your OS, the kernel is probably not representing IO buffers as linked lists. But, it's almost certainly storing free IO buffers in a linked list, or using lists to track threads waiting on a lock, etc.

Also, the implication you should ignore algorithmic complexity is questionable. I'd rather be slower by a constant factor than sometimes suffer catastrophic performance when a workload causes the asymptotic complexity to dominate the constant factors. I remember debugging an algorithm that worked fine on some developer's test machine with a few nodes, but exploded on a load with many nodes. It had factorial complexity...

[jeffasinger]

The article should be viewed in the context of High Scalability. I think the author is more saying that you should test which works faster, rather than solely relying on algorithmic complexity.

[papsosouid]

There's nothing to address. Your introductory data structures and algorithms class taught you when lists are good and when they are bad. That isn't controversial. The problem is the claim that you should never use lists, which is absurd.