[showHNshow]

The article contains many false claims and its main statement that intrusive lists are better than non-intrusive ones is simply wrong.

Outright wrong:

1) There is no additional dereferencing needed when using his 'ListNode' implementation, since the object is stored directly in the ListNode.

2) If you want objects to be non-pointer members of ListNodes of several lists, you can achieve that with both intrusive and non-intrusive lists in exactly the same way (contrary to the authors claim).

The article is a disgusting example of someone trying to proof a point he heard somewhere else. So it is not his original idea and he is failing hard.

Why are there no comments on HN (except for jokoon) addressing that? Instead everybody uses the comment system as a platform to show off his own bad ass C++ skills... stupid. You deserve each other

[logicallee]

Your contribution would be very welcome here and upvoted, if you kept it factual (your points #1 and #2 are interesting and fine; your speculation that the author heard this elsewhere is almost okay, if you had elaborated.)

But in your last two paragraphs you switch to using the language of trolls ('disgusting example', 'stupid', 'you deserve each other'). no need - you went from being an obvious upvote to an obvious downvote and probably risk being hellbanned. (Where you see your contributions but nobody else does - then nobody can see you no matter how good your points are.)

see commenting guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I hope you will read that and be a positively contributing part of this community.

[gsg]

How exactly can the same object (not a copy) be an element of two non-intrusive lists?