Subject: DocOz Episode: June 23 Recap

From: Flip Your Fat-Burning Switch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 10:44:58 -0700

Whether its the first or the last 20-lbs you need to lose....

Get ready to lose them in the blink of an eye ... In 20-days to be exact.

DocOz Episode Post - June 23

- The Revolutionary way to get BIG results with putting in minimum effort.

Whether you want to melt fat, boost energy, lift mood, or just be a bit more 
toned in a few important places... DocOz has your Solution

View DocOz Solution Here -> http://www.yearwog.com/oz/plan/results.html
Episode 547

[Oz Blog]

To stop further notifications write Current Update Alerts write 1644 Doral Dr
Brookings, SD 57006 or visit http://www.yearwog.com/er/fki/krir.ri39jkk

Sorry. marked you down. LinkedList doesn't suck. There are situations where LinkedList is the correct class to use. I agree that there aren't many situations where it is better than an arraylist, but they do exist. Educate people who do silly things orry to see you got lots of down-votes for this. There is indeed very little reason to use Java's LinkedList. In addition to the bad performance it also uses lots more memory than the other concrete List classes (every node has two additional pointers and each node is a separate wrapper object with the extra overhead bytes that go with them This is one of the most useful answers here. It's a shame so many programmers fail to understand (a) the difference between abstract data types and concrete implementations, and (b) the real-world importance of constant factors and memory overhead in determining performance.  This is a rather blinkered view. Yes, it's true that ArrayList is a very versatile tool. However, it has its limitations. There 
 are cases in which this will cause you trouble, and you will have to use LinkedList. Of course, it is a very specialized solution, and, as any specialized tool, in most cases it is outperformed by a versatile one. But that doesn't mean that it "sucks" or something like that, you just have to know when to use it. They do exist, but I think Tom's point was that if you have to ask, you probably want ArrayList.  I would like to point out that most BSTree implementations are a form of a linked list. The point is that while LinkedList class might be very specialized the idea behind the class (the data structure itself) is important to understand.  it does suck. There is almost no single case where ArrayList or ArrayDeque would be worse performance wise. LinkedList is a memory hog and Large LinkedList can kill GC performance. Linked structures are good for concurrency and stuff like LinkedHashMap or LinkedTree but not for lists. Tom, you should probably include the fact the garbage collect
 or has to traverse the list which a lot more expensive than an array backed structure. Side note: That should be the top answer.   bestsss Apr 18 '13 at 23:04
  	  	
Try writing a high-capacity LRU cache without a doubly-linked list... good luck :)   Timothy Shields Apr 19 '13 
 If you want amortized O(1) get and put operations you would. The point is that it's a data structure that has advantages and disadvantages compared to array lists. For the vast majority of tasks, array list is better. But there are instances where a linked list is absolutely the correct choice.   Timothy Shields  structures but not LinkedList. The questions is clearly about j.u.LinkedList vs j.u.ArrayList and LinkedList would almost always a mistake. You'd be very hard pressed to try and find an example where LinkedList actually wins.   bestsss Apr 19 '13 at 16:11