这里有一个快速的方法:移除物品更快。

没有人再编写自己的链表了。那太愚蠢了。使用链表需要更多代码的前提是错误的。

如今，构建链表只是学生们的一个练习，以便他们能够理解这个概念。相反，每个人都使用预先构建的列表。在c++中，根据我们问题中的描述，这可能意味着stl向量(#include <vector>)。

因此，选择链表还是数组完全是权衡每个结构相对于应用程序需求的不同特征。克服额外的编程负担应该对决策没有任何影响。

我也认为链表比数组更好。 因为我们在链表中做遍历，而不是在数组中

由于数组本质上是静态的，因此所有的操作 比如内存分配发生在编译的时候 只有。因此处理器必须在运行时投入更少的精力。

对我来说是这样的，

Access Linked Lists allow only sequential access to elements. Thus the algorithmic complexities is order of O(n) Arrays allow random access to its elements and thus the complexity is order of O(1) Storage Linked lists require an extra storage for references. This makes them impractical for lists of small data items such as characters or boolean values. Arrays do not need an extra storage to point to next data item. Each element can be accessed via indexes. Size The size of Linked lists are dynamic by nature. The size of array is restricted to declaration. Insertion/Deletion Elements can be inserted and deleted in linked lists indefinitely. Insertion/Deletion of values in arrays are very expensive. It requires memory reallocation.

为什么是链表而不是数组?有些人已经说过，插入和删除的速度更快。

但也许我们不需要生活在两者的限制下，同时获得两者的优点……是吗?

对于数组删除，您可以使用'Deleted'字节来表示一行已被删除的事实，因此不再需要重新组织数组。为了减轻插入或快速更改数据的负担，可以使用链表。然后，在引用它们的时候，让你的逻辑先搜索一个，再搜索另一个。因此，将它们结合使用可以使您获得两者的最佳效果。

If you have a really large array, you could combine it with another, much smaller array or linked list where the smaller one hold thes 20, 50, 100 most recently used items. If the one needed is not in the shorter linked list or array, you go to the large array. If found there, you can then add it to the smaller linked list/array on the presumption that 'things most recently used are most likey to be re-used' ( and yes, possibly bumping the least recently used item from the list ). Which is true in many cases and solved a problem I had to tackle in an .ASP security permissions checking module, with ease, elegance, and impressive speed.