>When people asking my opinion for Rust, I loved to share them the Linkedin List implementation link: This LinkedList obsession is a bit bizarre to me, and ten

>When people asking my opinion for Rust, I loved to share them the Linkedin List implementation link: This LinkedList obsession is a bit bizarre to me, and tends to come from older programmers who come from a time when coding interviews involved writing linked lists and balancing b-trees. To me though it also represents the stubbornness of C programmers who refuse to consider things like growable vectors a solved problem. My reaction to the LinkedList coders is not "well Rust needs to maintain ownership", its why does your benchmark for how easy a language is involve how easy it is to fuck around with raw pointers?. LinkedLists are a tool, but to C programmers that are an invaluable fundamental building block that shows up early in any C programmers education due to how simple they are to implement and the wide range of use cases they can be used for. But they are technically an unsafe data structure and if you willing to let some of that stubbornness go and finally accept some guard rails, you have to be able to see that a data structure like linkedlists will be harder to implement. It has nothing to do with the language; implementing with LinkedLists with any sort of guardrails adds a ton of complexity, either up front (e.g. borrowchecker) or behind the scenes (e.g. a garbage collector). When you accept this fact, it becomes ludicrous to imply that a LinkedList implementation is a good benchmark for the ergonomics of a language like Rust.