(quuxplusone.github.io)

178 points todsacerdoti | 1 comments | 04 Mar 21 08:02 UTC | HN request time: 0.209s | source

Show context

jokoon ◴[04 Mar 21 10:40 UTC] No.26340841[source]▶

Thanks for the article, there should be a huge list of those type of classic C++ misconceptions/FAQ style.

One of my favorite is "you don't need a linked list".

Although I'm still genuinely interested when a linked list is best suited. I'm also curious why they were invented and why they're taught, maybe just for teaching purposes...

replies(12): >>26340881 #>>26340918 #>>26340936 #>>26341086 #>>26341090 #>>26341157 #>>26341167 #>>26341203 #>>26341240 #>>26341290 #>>26341787 #>>26347246 #

1. eru ◴[04 Mar 21 13:02 UTC] No.26341787[source]▶

>>26340841 #

Linked lists are great when you want a fully persistent data structure version of a stack. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_data_structure)

If you don't need persistence, you can often use a dynamic array to do basically everything a linked list can do for you, but most of it faster.

Also, if you have a relocating garbage collector, or otherwise a smart enough compiler (or interpreter), linked lists can become sufficiently efficient.

↑

Don’t blindly prefer emplace_back to push_back