> It's just a matter of algorithmic complexity. A hashmap, ordered or not, is more complicated than a linked list, which is what Keywords are built upon. You m

> It's just a matter of algorithmic complexity. A hashmap, ordered or not, is more complicated than a linked list, which is what Keywords are built upon. You mean implementation complexity right? Anyway, I was talking about semantics, not performance or implementation. > If you have less than 10 elements, a linked list will always be faster than any hashmap on modern CPUs. Citation needed. That personally sounds totally bonkers to me. Faster HOW? If the pointers of each node in the linked list are far apart in memory the L1/L2 cache misses will absolutely destroy the performance. I think you're talking from a ton of assumptions that you haven't stated. If the list is that short, why isn't it a contiguous array in memory? That's going to be way smaller and way way faster in every way.