Anonymous user
Talk:Doubly-linked list/Definition: Difference between revisions
→Python attitude problem: Not! (For which the expected reply is: is-too!)
(→Python attitude problem: new section) |
(→Python attitude problem: Not! (For which the expected reply is: is-too!)) |
||
Line 25:
The Python section is plain wrong. Linked list is for algorithms, not just normal data storage, saying "I'm high level language la la la" is just silly.
:Hi Ledrug. Please sign your comments on talk pages.
:I disagree with your statement. An interpreted linked list ''is'' going to be much slower, harder to maintain, and a needless source of bugs when compared to Pythons in-built list data-structure. The in-built list has all the interface of a doubly-linked list, and any interpreted version would not work any faster or be any cleaner in an algorithm calling for (doubly) linked lists that were programmed in Python. The reason Python has lists is for them to be used.
:[[Tree traversal#Python]] takes a different tack and does show the use of named_tuples in creating a tree of data, but then that task is more than "show the datastructure".
:Of course, one could write a class implementing a doubly linked list in interpreted Python and append it to the Python section of the task, but I think my comment would still hold. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 07:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
| |||