> I recently developed a new data structure called the Shift-To-Middle Array, designed as an alternative to std::deque, std::vector, and linked lists. I notice

> I recently developed a new data structure called the Shift-To-Middle Array, designed as an alternative to std::deque, std::vector, and linked lists. I notice you do not include ring buffers in this headline alternatives list. To me ring buffers seem the most natural comparison. I'd expect them to perform strictly better (no movement, no amortized constant time). But parsing APIs often can't handle the discontinuity where they wrap around, so I think this or something like it has value. I do see you included this `ExpandingRingBuffer` in your benchmarks, and wrote the following: > ExpandingRingBuffer performs well for small to medium container sizes but becomes less efficient for larger sizes, where Shift-To-Middle Array and std::deque maintain better performance. Why do you think ExpandingRingBuffer's performance suffers? Is this about frequent expansion? Otherwise, as mentioned above, I'd expect a well-implemented ring buffer to be hard to beat.