I think the whole "dynamic arrays" vs "linked lists" debacle is just a waste of time, since the two actually complement each other. - You can certainly impleme

I think the whole "dynamic arrays" vs "linked lists" debacle is just a waste of time, since the two actually complement each other. - You can certainly implement linked lists using dynamic arrays, so you call the minimal amount of `malloc()`s and also make your items stored contiguously! You need to use indices instead of pointers, since you will lose pointer stability unless you use virtual memory (though the upside is that typically a uint32_t is enough for most cases, which only takes up half as much memory as a pointer). - A lot of data structures under the hood uses linked lists, even the ones that seem to use dynamic arrays on the surface. Have experience in writing a simple arena allocator? For the allocator to find a free space in the arena in O(1), you need to maintain a free-list data structure under the hood. And guess what: you need to write a linked list. Even your operating systems' `malloc()` itself probably uses linked lists under the hood. - Linked lists just come up inside so many other data structures, that you can essentially call it as the 'backbone'. For example: in compute graphics there is something called a half-edge data structure [0], which stores the geometry data of a mesh that's both compact, easy to iterate, and easy to do manipulations with (for instance, you can do things like insert/delete an edge/face easily in O(1) time, and more complex mesh operations can be implemented as well). And guess what? The vertices and halfedges are essentially stored in a complex web of linked lists. [0] https://jerryyin.info/geometry-processing-algorithms/half-edge/ https://jerryyin.info/geometry-processing-algorithms/half-ed...