Those are good examples of things that seem easy to write perfectly until you change some requirements that seemed like they would never change.
Take your list manipulating library and throw in a requirement that all node allocations have to be pooled, or that it needs to work in a multi-threaded environment. All of a sudden you have to rewrite them all. (for example, see: STL vs EASTL)
Someone already mentioned floating point, but math can definitely get tricky if you have to be exact. An example from my own past experience - it's really easy to write code to cut a 2d triangle using an arbitrary line as the cutting axis. It almost always works, and it usually works flawlessly. Until you get close to degenerate cases, skinny triangles or overlapping vertices. Throw in a requirement that degenerate cases must resolve correctly, and suddenly you have to start over and use a different representation of numbers. Make it a little more general to handle 4+ sided polygons, and before you know it, you spend a decade trying to get it right. (for example: http://www.complex-a5.ru/polyboolean/comp.html)
That list manipulating library might still be based on concepts which are understandable and communicable to their users, allowing us to reason at different levels on their internal and external behavior. This in turn allows us to say, at a certain abstraction level: this code is complete. Thinking of Occam we might continue: given our preconditions, our abstractions, our algebra: this is the simplest.
It is fair to believe that 'perfect' means that all unnecessary complexity is removed. But, I would like to argue againts its usage, as the word carries too much emotional baggage in this context.
In that sense, there is no perfect code, nor will there ever be. There will only EVER be good enough.
The purpose of words is to share information. If you have write a paragraph describing your definition when you use a word, use a different one.
If software functions correctly but is unnecessarily hard to use due to (eg.) bad layout, would you still call it perfect?
>literally trash