Hi all,

Thanks for the feedback so far. I am implementing it to further my understanding of how they work. My intent would be to use the .NET implementation.

I did think as I was implementing the loops with indexes that what happens if the list gets too big? I know that each node is stored, non-sequentially, in memory which makes it longer to iterate over.

I have thought about adding a reference for the tail; making it the result of AddNode().

What I'm stuck on is the idea of holding a place in the list. Isn't this just as slow as starting from the beginning? If you start at the beginning then you don't have to worry about going backwards. Otherwise I need to create a doubly Linked List to be able to traverse back and forth.

I have some great feedback to work on from this.

Thanks,

Stitchs.

You cannot just focus on low-level details such as memory footprint and cache usage. There's a place for that, but before you get there, you should at least be aware of some basic algorithm analysis. Yes, a doubly-linked list has an extra cost, and non-sequential memory access has an extra cost, but you're forgetting about the plain old cost of having to do N steps when there's an alternative that would take a constant amount of time.

Before you even get to insertion, let's say I want to loop over the whole list and do something with each string. I'm curious, what would that code look like, to the list user and internally?

@ChaosEngine: I was going to implement it as a Generic Type, but I'm never going to use it for my projects and wanted something that I could get information from quickly, for testing, which is why I pre-made it using the String class.

@Pink Horror: I' guessing that if I wanted to look at/use every item I would (internal code):

for(int i = 0; i < list.Length; i++)
{
     DoSomething(currentNode);
     currentNode = currentNode.next;
}

User code:

DoSomethingWithAllListItems(int pLength);

This would be O(N) Linear as it will take an amount of time and resources proportional, to the size of the list (which if it gets very big, will cost a lot). If I want constant time, such as the change I have made to my AddNode() method, I would need to be able to access a node directly, knowing it's location beforehand.

I hope I have understood what you are trying to say, but what would be a constant alternative to looping the list. Would I have to order it first?

Stitchs.