3 ms·

> if a computer could perform operations on a linked list as quickly and with as little memory as it could for an array, nobody would ever choose to use arrays

> if a computer could perform operations on a linked list as quickly and with as little memory as it could for an array, nobody would ever choose to use arrays You can start from a false premise, and draw any conclusion you like. If a computer could perform operations on a linked list as quickly and with as little memory as it could for an array, purple unicorns would be grazing on my lawn right now. :)

hajile 3y ago
My assertion is that linked lists map BETTER to the human and WORSE to the computer. The thought experiment is simply a way to prove that fact and is not a premise let alone a false one. If arrays and linked lists had the same performance characteristics, we'd pick linked lists every time because they map better to how humans think about problems while arrays map better to how computers think about problems. Thus we can conclude the exact opposite of the assertion I was responding to. People naturally gravitate toward linked lists then get forcibly re-educated to use arrays because that's what makes the computer happy.
- CyberDildonics 3y ago
  My assertion is that linked lists map BETTER to the human That's your assertion, but you didn't back it up by anything other than saying you can insert into the middle of a list (which is rare to need and can be done with a sorted map). Thus we can conclude the exact opposite of the assertion I was responding to You can't conclude anything from someone making the same assertion with no evidence over and over. Pragmatically what people use over and over are arrays and hash maps. There's a reason perl, python, lua and javascript all thrived by having arrays and hash maps built in to the core of the language. If you want to loop through something or index by an offset you use an array. If you want to access by key, you use a hash map. In the rare scenario you need to insert into the middle of a specific order, use a sorted map. Modern programming has no place for basic linked lists of granular data and they aren't missed in any sort of real scenario. If can back up what you're saying with any sort of evidence or a specific scenario, go ahead.

hajile 3y ago

My assertion is that linked lists map BETTER to the human and WORSE to the computer. The thought experiment is simply a way to prove that fact and is not a premise let alone a false one. If arrays and linked lists had the same performance characteristics, we'd pick linked lists every time because they map better to how humans think about problems while arrays map better to how computers think about problems. Thus we can conclude the exact opposite of the assertion I was responding to. People naturally gravitate toward linked lists then get forcibly re-educated to use arrays because that's what makes the computer happy.

CyberDildonics 3y ago
My assertion is that linked lists map BETTER to the human That's your assertion, but you didn't back it up by anything other than saying you can insert into the middle of a list (which is rare to need and can be done with a sorted map). Thus we can conclude the exact opposite of the assertion I was responding to You can't conclude anything from someone making the same assertion with no evidence over and over. Pragmatically what people use over and over are arrays and hash maps. There's a reason perl, python, lua and javascript all thrived by having arrays and hash maps built in to the core of the language. If you want to loop through something or index by an offset you use an array. If you want to access by key, you use a hash map. In the rare scenario you need to insert into the middle of a specific order, use a sorted map. Modern programming has no place for basic linked lists of granular data and they aren't missed in any sort of real scenario. If can back up what you're saying with any sort of evidence or a specific scenario, go ahead.