假设您有一个有序集，您还想通过添加和删除元素来修改它。此外，您需要能够以这样的方式保留对元素的引用，以便稍后可以获得前一个或下一个元素。例如，一本书中的待办事项列表或一组段落。

首先，我们应该注意到，如果您想在集合本身之外保留对对象的引用，那么您可能最终会将指针存储在数组中，而不是存储对象本身。否则你将无法插入到数组中-如果对象嵌入到数组中，它们将在插入期间移动，并且任何指向它们的指针都将无效。数组下标也是如此。

您的第一个问题，正如您自己所注意到的，是插入链表允许插入O(1)，但数组通常需要O(n)。这个问题可以部分克服——可以创建一种数据结构，提供类似数组的按顺序访问接口，其中读和写在最坏的情况下都是对数的。

Your second, and more severe problem is that given an element finding next element is O(n). If the set was not modified you could retain the index of the element as the reference instead of the pointer thus making find-next an O(1) operation, but as it is all you have is a pointer to the object itself and no way to determine its current index in the array other than by scanning the entire "array". This is an insurmountable problem for arrays - even if you can optimized insertions, there is nothing you can do to optimize find-next type operation.

Arrays make sense where the exact number of items will be known, and where searching by index makes sense. For example, if I wanted to store the exact state of my video output at a given moment without compression I would probably use an array of size [1024][768]. This will provide me with exactly what I need, and a list would be much, much slower to get the value of a given pixel. In places where an array does not make sense there are generally better data types than a list to deal with data effectively.

While many of you have touched upon major adv./dis of linked list vs array, most of the comparisons are how one is better/ worse than the other.Eg. you can do random access in array but not possible in linked list and others. However, this is assuming link lists and array are going to be applied in a similar application. However a correct answer should be how link list would be preferred over array and vice-versa in a particular application deployment. Suppose you want to implement a dictionary application, what would you use ? Array : mmm it would allow easy retrieval through binary search and other search algo .. but lets think how link list can be better..Say you want to search "Blob" in dictionary. Would it make sense to have a link list of A->B->C->D---->Z and then each list element also pointing to an array or another list of all words starting with that letter ..

A -> B -> C -> ...Z
|    |    |
|    |    [Cat, Cave]
|    [Banana, Blob]
[Adam, Apple]

Now is the above approach better or a flat array of [Adam,Apple,Banana,Blob,Cat,Cave] ? Would it even be possible with array ? So a major advantage of link list is you can have an element not just pointing to the next element but also to some other link list/array/ heap/ or any other memory location. Array is a one flat contigous memory sliced into blocks size of the element it is going to store.. Link list on the other hand is a chunks of non-contigous memory units (can be any size and can store anything) and pointing to each other the way you want. Similarly lets say you are making a USB drive. Now would you like files to be saved as any array or as a link list ? I think you get the idea what I am pointing to :)

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。

链表比数组的维护开销更大，它还需要额外的内存存储，所有这些都是一致的。但是有一些事情是数组做不到的。在很多情况下，假设你想要一个长度为10^9的数组你无法得到它，因为必须有一个连续的内存位置。链表可能是这里的救世主。

假设你想用数据存储多个东西，那么它们可以很容易地扩展到链表中。

STL容器通常在后台有链表实现。

假设您有一个有序集，您还想通过添加和删除元素来修改它。此外，您需要能够以这样的方式保留对元素的引用，以便稍后可以获得前一个或下一个元素。例如，一本书中的待办事项列表或一组段落。

首先，我们应该注意到，如果您想在集合本身之外保留对对象的引用，那么您可能最终会将指针存储在数组中，而不是存储对象本身。否则你将无法插入到数组中-如果对象嵌入到数组中，它们将在插入期间移动，并且任何指向它们的指针都将无效。数组下标也是如此。

您的第一个问题，正如您自己所注意到的，是插入链表允许插入O(1)，但数组通常需要O(n)。这个问题可以部分克服——可以创建一种数据结构，提供类似数组的按顺序访问接口，其中读和写在最坏的情况下都是对数的。

Your second, and more severe problem is that given an element finding next element is O(n). If the set was not modified you could retain the index of the element as the reference instead of the pointer thus making find-next an O(1) operation, but as it is all you have is a pointer to the object itself and no way to determine its current index in the array other than by scanning the entire "array". This is an insurmountable problem for arrays - even if you can optimized insertions, there is nothing you can do to optimize find-next type operation.