> And this is (1) wildly mistating the requirements and (2) deeply offensive to those of us who work in those regimes. Care to expand how? While not a kernel

> And this is (1) wildly mistating the requirements and (2) deeply offensive to those of us who work in those regimes. Care to expand how? While not a kernel dev, I've had my share of use cases where I've done exactly this kind of thing in gamedev, and I simply cannot bring myself to disagree with what's been said, or see what's offensive. It's strange, debugging when the pointers get corrupted by other code exhibiting UB is painful, it's a potential multithreading hazard, and flat contiguous arrays are frequently more appropriate - but it's sometimes useful. It's not arguing that an alternative paradigm can - or even should - be deployed in a heapless context. It's explicitly admitting that intrusive linked lists are an appropriate paradigm.