链表是一个动态的数据结构，因此它可以在运行时通过分配和释放内存来增长和收缩。所以不需要给出链表的初始大小。插入和删除节点非常容易。

2-链表的大小可以在运行时增加或减少，因此没有内存浪费。在数组的情况下，有很多内存浪费，比如如果我们声明一个大小为10的数组，只存储6个元素，那么4个元素的空间就浪费了。链表中不存在这样的问题，因为只有在需要时才分配内存。

3-数据结构，如堆栈和队列可以很容易地实现使用链表。

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.

维基百科上有很好的章节介绍了它们的区别。

Linked lists have several advantages over arrays. Elements can be inserted into linked lists indefinitely, while an array will eventually either fill up or need to be resized, an expensive operation that may not even be possible if memory is fragmented. Similarly, an array from which many elements are removed may become wastefully empty or need to be made smaller. On the other hand, arrays allow random access, while linked lists allow only sequential access to elements. Singly-linked lists, in fact, can only be traversed in one direction. This makes linked lists unsuitable for applications where it's useful to look up an element by its index quickly, such as heapsort. Sequential access on arrays is also faster than on linked lists on many machines due to locality of reference and data caches. Linked lists receive almost no benefit from the cache. Another disadvantage of linked lists is the extra storage needed for references, which often makes them impractical for lists of small data items such as characters or boolean values. It can also be slow, and with a naïve allocator, wasteful, to allocate memory separately for each new element, a problem generally solved using memory pools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_list

A widely unappreciated argument for ArrayList and against LinkedList is that LinkedLists are uncomfortable while debugging. The time spent by maintenance developers to understand the program, e.g. to find bugs, increases and IMHO does sometimes not justify the nanoseconds in performance improvements or bytes in memory consumption in enterprise applicatons. Sometimes (well, of course it depends on the type of applications), it's better to waste a few bytes but have an application which is more maintainable or easier to understand.

例如，在Java环境中，使用Eclipse调试器，调试ArrayList将显示一个非常容易理解的结构:

arrayList   ArrayList<String>
  elementData   Object[]
    [0] Object  "Foo"
    [1] Object  "Foo"
    [2] Object  "Foo"
    [3] Object  "Foo"
    [4] Object  "Foo"
    ...

另一方面，查看LinkedList的内容并找到特定的对象变成了一个展开树的噩梦，更不用说过滤LinkedList内部信息所需的认知开销:

linkedList  LinkedList<String>
    header  LinkedList$Entry<E>
        element E
        next    LinkedList$Entry<E>
            element E   "Foo"
            next    LinkedList$Entry<E>
                element E   "Foo"
                next    LinkedList$Entry<E>
                    element E   "Foo"
                    next    LinkedList$Entry<E>
                    previous    LinkedList$Entry<E>
                    ...
                previous    LinkedList$Entry<E>
            previous    LinkedList$Entry<E>
        previous    LinkedList$Entry<E>

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.

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 :)