> The way modern memory works linked lists are practically a denial of service attack on system performance.
and
> IMO, like goto’s it’s better to just forget they exist.
That's as close to "never use a linked list" as you can get without saying that literal sentence.
If you have a degenerate case and are never traversing nodes, you’re still likely better of with a rung buffer, array list, 2 different stacks, or various other options. And frankly you’re never going to endlessly just insert data without reading it.
Re-read my original post: "[...] especially if you have callbacks which store a pointer to a list element [...]"
This happens all the time in kernel code or bare-metal programming.
What else can I say? Open the Linux source code [1] and see for yourself.
PS: If you don’t feel like pointing to a concrete example, I am going to counter with 99% of the stuff you can find here: www.google.com.
Look, I'm not saying that linked lists can replace arrays. In fact, I almost always use arrays instead of linked lists. What I'm arguing against is the notion that arrays always trump linked lists, which is false, and repeating that meme shows a lack of deeper understanding.