THE POST BELOW IS MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD. RELATED SUPPORT INFORMATION MIGHT BE OUTDATED OR DEPRECATED
On 07/08/2005 at 14:58, xxxxxxxx wrote:
Yes, lists are slow, but it's not just the numbers of list items, but the size of the list items as well. I deal with lists that are hundreds/thousands of items, but each item contains 10's of KB of data. This means tens (sometimes even hundreds) of MBs for a array which could potentially (and probably frequently) have difficulties when praying for those large chunks of memory to be available for every allocation and reallocation. And the item numbers vary widely, so guessing maximums will assuredly lead to limitations and/or memory waste. Additionally, arrays aren't very condusive to constructing hierarchies. :)
Again, all depends on circumstances. For storing a baselink and matrix, arrays are probably more than sufficient, yes.
Not to go off topic, it would be great if memory management wasn't solely placed into the hands of the developers - not like there isn't much else to do when developing complex software! ;)