| ### What it does |
| Checks for usage of any `LinkedList`, suggesting to use a |
| `Vec` or a `VecDeque` (formerly called `RingBuf`). |
| |
| ### Why is this bad? |
| Gankro says: |
| |
| > The TL;DR of `LinkedList` is that it's built on a massive amount of |
| pointers and indirection. |
| > It wastes memory, it has terrible cache locality, and is all-around slow. |
| `RingBuf`, while |
| > "only" amortized for push/pop, should be faster in the general case for |
| almost every possible |
| > workload, and isn't even amortized at all if you can predict the capacity |
| you need. |
| > |
| > `LinkedList`s are only really good if you're doing a lot of merging or |
| splitting of lists. |
| > This is because they can just mangle some pointers instead of actually |
| copying the data. Even |
| > if you're doing a lot of insertion in the middle of the list, `RingBuf` |
| can still be better |
| > because of how expensive it is to seek to the middle of a `LinkedList`. |
| |
| ### Known problems |
| False positives – the instances where using a |
| `LinkedList` makes sense are few and far between, but they can still happen. |
| |
| ### Example |
| ``` |
| let x: LinkedList<usize> = LinkedList::new(); |
| ``` |
