How come list element lookup is O(1) in Python?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
19
down vote

favorite
5












Today in class, we learned that retrieving an element from a list is O(1) in Python. Why is this the case? Suppose I have a list of four items, for example:



li = ["perry", 1, 23.5, "s"]


These items have different sizes in memory. And so it is not possible to take the memory location of li[0] and add three times the size of each element to get the memory location of li[3]. So how does the interpreter know where li[3] is without having to traverse the list in order to retrieve the element?










share|improve this question



















  • 14




    What makes you think that arrays are linearly allocated rather than a list of pointers. - [me confused by your profile description]
    – Morrison Chang
    2 days ago







  • 22




    Don't confuse item access, which is O(1), with item lookup / search, which is O(n).
    – Mike Scotty
    2 days ago







  • 4




    Some relevant reading material: Python list implementation, How is Python's List Implemented?, What is the underlying data structure for Python lists?.
    – Warren Weckesser
    2 days ago






  • 2




    It is not good to ask the same question on two different SE sites (when answers will be within the same context).
    – rus9384
    yesterday







  • 2




    Cross-posted to Computer Science (where, IMO, it's off-topic). Please don't post the same question to multiple Stack Exchange sites. It fragments answers and wastes people's time when they put effort into answering questions that already have answers elsewhere.
    – David Richerby
    yesterday














up vote
19
down vote

favorite
5












Today in class, we learned that retrieving an element from a list is O(1) in Python. Why is this the case? Suppose I have a list of four items, for example:



li = ["perry", 1, 23.5, "s"]


These items have different sizes in memory. And so it is not possible to take the memory location of li[0] and add three times the size of each element to get the memory location of li[3]. So how does the interpreter know where li[3] is without having to traverse the list in order to retrieve the element?










share|improve this question



















  • 14




    What makes you think that arrays are linearly allocated rather than a list of pointers. - [me confused by your profile description]
    – Morrison Chang
    2 days ago







  • 22




    Don't confuse item access, which is O(1), with item lookup / search, which is O(n).
    – Mike Scotty
    2 days ago







  • 4




    Some relevant reading material: Python list implementation, How is Python's List Implemented?, What is the underlying data structure for Python lists?.
    – Warren Weckesser
    2 days ago






  • 2




    It is not good to ask the same question on two different SE sites (when answers will be within the same context).
    – rus9384
    yesterday







  • 2




    Cross-posted to Computer Science (where, IMO, it's off-topic). Please don't post the same question to multiple Stack Exchange sites. It fragments answers and wastes people's time when they put effort into answering questions that already have answers elsewhere.
    – David Richerby
    yesterday












up vote
19
down vote

favorite
5









up vote
19
down vote

favorite
5






5





Today in class, we learned that retrieving an element from a list is O(1) in Python. Why is this the case? Suppose I have a list of four items, for example:



li = ["perry", 1, 23.5, "s"]


These items have different sizes in memory. And so it is not possible to take the memory location of li[0] and add three times the size of each element to get the memory location of li[3]. So how does the interpreter know where li[3] is without having to traverse the list in order to retrieve the element?










share|improve this question















Today in class, we learned that retrieving an element from a list is O(1) in Python. Why is this the case? Suppose I have a list of four items, for example:



li = ["perry", 1, 23.5, "s"]


These items have different sizes in memory. And so it is not possible to take the memory location of li[0] and add three times the size of each element to get the memory location of li[3]. So how does the interpreter know where li[3] is without having to traverse the list in order to retrieve the element?







python arrays list






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited yesterday









Peter Mortensen

13.1k1983111




13.1k1983111










asked 2 days ago









Teererai Marange

74021334




74021334







  • 14




    What makes you think that arrays are linearly allocated rather than a list of pointers. - [me confused by your profile description]
    – Morrison Chang
    2 days ago







  • 22




    Don't confuse item access, which is O(1), with item lookup / search, which is O(n).
    – Mike Scotty
    2 days ago







  • 4




    Some relevant reading material: Python list implementation, How is Python's List Implemented?, What is the underlying data structure for Python lists?.
    – Warren Weckesser
    2 days ago






  • 2




    It is not good to ask the same question on two different SE sites (when answers will be within the same context).
    – rus9384
    yesterday







  • 2




    Cross-posted to Computer Science (where, IMO, it's off-topic). Please don't post the same question to multiple Stack Exchange sites. It fragments answers and wastes people's time when they put effort into answering questions that already have answers elsewhere.
    – David Richerby
    yesterday












  • 14




    What makes you think that arrays are linearly allocated rather than a list of pointers. - [me confused by your profile description]
    – Morrison Chang
    2 days ago







  • 22




    Don't confuse item access, which is O(1), with item lookup / search, which is O(n).
    – Mike Scotty
    2 days ago







  • 4




    Some relevant reading material: Python list implementation, How is Python's List Implemented?, What is the underlying data structure for Python lists?.
    – Warren Weckesser
    2 days ago






  • 2




    It is not good to ask the same question on two different SE sites (when answers will be within the same context).
    – rus9384
    yesterday







  • 2




    Cross-posted to Computer Science (where, IMO, it's off-topic). Please don't post the same question to multiple Stack Exchange sites. It fragments answers and wastes people's time when they put effort into answering questions that already have answers elsewhere.
    – David Richerby
    yesterday







14




14




What makes you think that arrays are linearly allocated rather than a list of pointers. - [me confused by your profile description]
– Morrison Chang
2 days ago





What makes you think that arrays are linearly allocated rather than a list of pointers. - [me confused by your profile description]
– Morrison Chang
2 days ago





22




22




Don't confuse item access, which is O(1), with item lookup / search, which is O(n).
– Mike Scotty
2 days ago





Don't confuse item access, which is O(1), with item lookup / search, which is O(n).
– Mike Scotty
2 days ago





4




4




Some relevant reading material: Python list implementation, How is Python's List Implemented?, What is the underlying data structure for Python lists?.
– Warren Weckesser
2 days ago




Some relevant reading material: Python list implementation, How is Python's List Implemented?, What is the underlying data structure for Python lists?.
– Warren Weckesser
2 days ago




2




2




It is not good to ask the same question on two different SE sites (when answers will be within the same context).
– rus9384
yesterday





It is not good to ask the same question on two different SE sites (when answers will be within the same context).
– rus9384
yesterday





2




2




Cross-posted to Computer Science (where, IMO, it's off-topic). Please don't post the same question to multiple Stack Exchange sites. It fragments answers and wastes people's time when they put effort into answering questions that already have answers elsewhere.
– David Richerby
yesterday




Cross-posted to Computer Science (where, IMO, it's off-topic). Please don't post the same question to multiple Stack Exchange sites. It fragments answers and wastes people's time when they put effort into answering questions that already have answers elsewhere.
– David Richerby
yesterday












3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
46
down vote



accepted










A list in Python is implemented as an array of pointers1. So, what's really happening when you create the list:



["perry", 1, 23.5, "s"]


is that you are actually creating an array of pointers like so:



[0xa3d25342, 0x635423fa, 0xff243546, 0x2545fade]


Each pointer "points" to the respective objects in memory, so that the string "perry" will be stored at address 0xa3d25342 and the number 1 will be stored at 0x635423fa, etc.



Since all pointers are the same size, the interpreter can in fact add 3 times the size of an element to the address of li[0] to get to the pointer stored at li[3].




1 Get more details from: the horse's mouth (CPython source code on GitHub).






share|improve this answer






















  • I am sorry, but according to Mark Lutz book I've got the impression list stores references, which is a bit different than pointers, is it the same thing there and different elsewhere, or references is pointers in python? I've heard what in C it's different with a complex explanation of difference.
    – Dmitry Verhoturov
    yesterday







  • 4




    @DmitryVerhoturov That's right but makes no practical difference for this answer. References are reference-counted, docs.python.org/3/c-api/structures.html#c.PyVarObject
    – pipe
    yesterday







  • 6




    Reference is implemented as pointers in every language I know. Semantics may differ slightly (e.g. differences in memory management, or references in C++ being immutable), but in the end they are still pointers.
    – Frax
    yesterday










  • Note that in practice retrieving an element from the list is actually more like O(log n)... and in theory physical constraints limit it to no better than O(sqrt n).
    – TLW
    yesterday






  • 5




    @TLW I've never seen those before. Where'd you find them?
    – Cort Ammon
    23 hours ago

















up vote
15
down vote













When you say a = [...], a is effectively a pointer to a PyObject containing an array of pointers to PyObjects.



When you ask for a[2], the interpreter first follows the pointer to the list's PyObject, then adds 2 to the address of the array inside it, then returns that pointer. The same happens if you ask for a[0] or a[9999].



Basically, all Python objects are accessed by reference instead of by value, even integer literals like 2. There are just some tricks in the pointer system to keep this all efficient. And pointers have a known size, so they can be stored conveniently in C-style arrays.






share|improve this answer
















  • 4




    what is ''terp''?
    – hkBst
    yesterday










  • @hkBst I infer that it's short for "interpreter".
    – Mario Carneiro
    yesterday

















up vote
5
down vote













Short answer: Python lists are arrays.



Long answer: The computer science term list usually means either a singly-linked list (as used in functional programming) or a doubly-linked list (as used in procedural programming). These data structures support O(1) insertion at either the head of the list (functionally) or at any position that does not need to be searched for (procedurally). A Python ``list'' has none of these characteristics. Instead it supports (amortized) O(1) appending at the end of the list (like a C++ std::vector or Java ArrayList). Python lists are really resizable arrays in CS terms.






share|improve this answer
















  • 1




    I’ve never heard of singly-linked lists being specifically associated with functional programming, or doubly-linked lists being specifically associated with procedural programming. Both types of list are valid and have their use-cases for both programming paradigms (and other programming paradigms besides). Can you back up that claim? I find it quite dubious.
    – KRyan
    yesterday










  • @KRyan I'm pretty sure that Lisp, Haskell, Ocaml are all generally using singly-linked lists, especially with the more convenient primitives in the languages. Lisp in particular has a bunch of shorthand like car/cdr for getting the various parts of the list elements. Of course they're used everywhere else, but, Lisp and functional company often makes much heavier use of them. C++'s list, for example is a doubly linked list, and only recently did they get a forward_list(which is singly typed)
    – jaked122
    yesterday










Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
StackExchange.snippets.init();
);
);
, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f52684993%2fhow-come-list-element-lookup-is-o1-in-python%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest






























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
46
down vote



accepted










A list in Python is implemented as an array of pointers1. So, what's really happening when you create the list:



["perry", 1, 23.5, "s"]


is that you are actually creating an array of pointers like so:



[0xa3d25342, 0x635423fa, 0xff243546, 0x2545fade]


Each pointer "points" to the respective objects in memory, so that the string "perry" will be stored at address 0xa3d25342 and the number 1 will be stored at 0x635423fa, etc.



Since all pointers are the same size, the interpreter can in fact add 3 times the size of an element to the address of li[0] to get to the pointer stored at li[3].




1 Get more details from: the horse's mouth (CPython source code on GitHub).






share|improve this answer






















  • I am sorry, but according to Mark Lutz book I've got the impression list stores references, which is a bit different than pointers, is it the same thing there and different elsewhere, or references is pointers in python? I've heard what in C it's different with a complex explanation of difference.
    – Dmitry Verhoturov
    yesterday







  • 4




    @DmitryVerhoturov That's right but makes no practical difference for this answer. References are reference-counted, docs.python.org/3/c-api/structures.html#c.PyVarObject
    – pipe
    yesterday







  • 6




    Reference is implemented as pointers in every language I know. Semantics may differ slightly (e.g. differences in memory management, or references in C++ being immutable), but in the end they are still pointers.
    – Frax
    yesterday










  • Note that in practice retrieving an element from the list is actually more like O(log n)... and in theory physical constraints limit it to no better than O(sqrt n).
    – TLW
    yesterday






  • 5




    @TLW I've never seen those before. Where'd you find them?
    – Cort Ammon
    23 hours ago














up vote
46
down vote



accepted










A list in Python is implemented as an array of pointers1. So, what's really happening when you create the list:



["perry", 1, 23.5, "s"]


is that you are actually creating an array of pointers like so:



[0xa3d25342, 0x635423fa, 0xff243546, 0x2545fade]


Each pointer "points" to the respective objects in memory, so that the string "perry" will be stored at address 0xa3d25342 and the number 1 will be stored at 0x635423fa, etc.



Since all pointers are the same size, the interpreter can in fact add 3 times the size of an element to the address of li[0] to get to the pointer stored at li[3].




1 Get more details from: the horse's mouth (CPython source code on GitHub).






share|improve this answer






















  • I am sorry, but according to Mark Lutz book I've got the impression list stores references, which is a bit different than pointers, is it the same thing there and different elsewhere, or references is pointers in python? I've heard what in C it's different with a complex explanation of difference.
    – Dmitry Verhoturov
    yesterday







  • 4




    @DmitryVerhoturov That's right but makes no practical difference for this answer. References are reference-counted, docs.python.org/3/c-api/structures.html#c.PyVarObject
    – pipe
    yesterday







  • 6




    Reference is implemented as pointers in every language I know. Semantics may differ slightly (e.g. differences in memory management, or references in C++ being immutable), but in the end they are still pointers.
    – Frax
    yesterday










  • Note that in practice retrieving an element from the list is actually more like O(log n)... and in theory physical constraints limit it to no better than O(sqrt n).
    – TLW
    yesterday






  • 5




    @TLW I've never seen those before. Where'd you find them?
    – Cort Ammon
    23 hours ago












up vote
46
down vote



accepted







up vote
46
down vote



accepted






A list in Python is implemented as an array of pointers1. So, what's really happening when you create the list:



["perry", 1, 23.5, "s"]


is that you are actually creating an array of pointers like so:



[0xa3d25342, 0x635423fa, 0xff243546, 0x2545fade]


Each pointer "points" to the respective objects in memory, so that the string "perry" will be stored at address 0xa3d25342 and the number 1 will be stored at 0x635423fa, etc.



Since all pointers are the same size, the interpreter can in fact add 3 times the size of an element to the address of li[0] to get to the pointer stored at li[3].




1 Get more details from: the horse's mouth (CPython source code on GitHub).






share|improve this answer














A list in Python is implemented as an array of pointers1. So, what's really happening when you create the list:



["perry", 1, 23.5, "s"]


is that you are actually creating an array of pointers like so:



[0xa3d25342, 0x635423fa, 0xff243546, 0x2545fade]


Each pointer "points" to the respective objects in memory, so that the string "perry" will be stored at address 0xa3d25342 and the number 1 will be stored at 0x635423fa, etc.



Since all pointers are the same size, the interpreter can in fact add 3 times the size of an element to the address of li[0] to get to the pointer stored at li[3].




1 Get more details from: the horse's mouth (CPython source code on GitHub).







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited yesterday

























answered 2 days ago









DJG

4,03232342




4,03232342











  • I am sorry, but according to Mark Lutz book I've got the impression list stores references, which is a bit different than pointers, is it the same thing there and different elsewhere, or references is pointers in python? I've heard what in C it's different with a complex explanation of difference.
    – Dmitry Verhoturov
    yesterday







  • 4




    @DmitryVerhoturov That's right but makes no practical difference for this answer. References are reference-counted, docs.python.org/3/c-api/structures.html#c.PyVarObject
    – pipe
    yesterday







  • 6




    Reference is implemented as pointers in every language I know. Semantics may differ slightly (e.g. differences in memory management, or references in C++ being immutable), but in the end they are still pointers.
    – Frax
    yesterday










  • Note that in practice retrieving an element from the list is actually more like O(log n)... and in theory physical constraints limit it to no better than O(sqrt n).
    – TLW
    yesterday






  • 5




    @TLW I've never seen those before. Where'd you find them?
    – Cort Ammon
    23 hours ago
















  • I am sorry, but according to Mark Lutz book I've got the impression list stores references, which is a bit different than pointers, is it the same thing there and different elsewhere, or references is pointers in python? I've heard what in C it's different with a complex explanation of difference.
    – Dmitry Verhoturov
    yesterday







  • 4




    @DmitryVerhoturov That's right but makes no practical difference for this answer. References are reference-counted, docs.python.org/3/c-api/structures.html#c.PyVarObject
    – pipe
    yesterday







  • 6




    Reference is implemented as pointers in every language I know. Semantics may differ slightly (e.g. differences in memory management, or references in C++ being immutable), but in the end they are still pointers.
    – Frax
    yesterday










  • Note that in practice retrieving an element from the list is actually more like O(log n)... and in theory physical constraints limit it to no better than O(sqrt n).
    – TLW
    yesterday






  • 5




    @TLW I've never seen those before. Where'd you find them?
    – Cort Ammon
    23 hours ago















I am sorry, but according to Mark Lutz book I've got the impression list stores references, which is a bit different than pointers, is it the same thing there and different elsewhere, or references is pointers in python? I've heard what in C it's different with a complex explanation of difference.
– Dmitry Verhoturov
yesterday





I am sorry, but according to Mark Lutz book I've got the impression list stores references, which is a bit different than pointers, is it the same thing there and different elsewhere, or references is pointers in python? I've heard what in C it's different with a complex explanation of difference.
– Dmitry Verhoturov
yesterday





4




4




@DmitryVerhoturov That's right but makes no practical difference for this answer. References are reference-counted, docs.python.org/3/c-api/structures.html#c.PyVarObject
– pipe
yesterday





@DmitryVerhoturov That's right but makes no practical difference for this answer. References are reference-counted, docs.python.org/3/c-api/structures.html#c.PyVarObject
– pipe
yesterday





6




6




Reference is implemented as pointers in every language I know. Semantics may differ slightly (e.g. differences in memory management, or references in C++ being immutable), but in the end they are still pointers.
– Frax
yesterday




Reference is implemented as pointers in every language I know. Semantics may differ slightly (e.g. differences in memory management, or references in C++ being immutable), but in the end they are still pointers.
– Frax
yesterday












Note that in practice retrieving an element from the list is actually more like O(log n)... and in theory physical constraints limit it to no better than O(sqrt n).
– TLW
yesterday




Note that in practice retrieving an element from the list is actually more like O(log n)... and in theory physical constraints limit it to no better than O(sqrt n).
– TLW
yesterday




5




5




@TLW I've never seen those before. Where'd you find them?
– Cort Ammon
23 hours ago




@TLW I've never seen those before. Where'd you find them?
– Cort Ammon
23 hours ago












up vote
15
down vote













When you say a = [...], a is effectively a pointer to a PyObject containing an array of pointers to PyObjects.



When you ask for a[2], the interpreter first follows the pointer to the list's PyObject, then adds 2 to the address of the array inside it, then returns that pointer. The same happens if you ask for a[0] or a[9999].



Basically, all Python objects are accessed by reference instead of by value, even integer literals like 2. There are just some tricks in the pointer system to keep this all efficient. And pointers have a known size, so they can be stored conveniently in C-style arrays.






share|improve this answer
















  • 4




    what is ''terp''?
    – hkBst
    yesterday










  • @hkBst I infer that it's short for "interpreter".
    – Mario Carneiro
    yesterday














up vote
15
down vote













When you say a = [...], a is effectively a pointer to a PyObject containing an array of pointers to PyObjects.



When you ask for a[2], the interpreter first follows the pointer to the list's PyObject, then adds 2 to the address of the array inside it, then returns that pointer. The same happens if you ask for a[0] or a[9999].



Basically, all Python objects are accessed by reference instead of by value, even integer literals like 2. There are just some tricks in the pointer system to keep this all efficient. And pointers have a known size, so they can be stored conveniently in C-style arrays.






share|improve this answer
















  • 4




    what is ''terp''?
    – hkBst
    yesterday










  • @hkBst I infer that it's short for "interpreter".
    – Mario Carneiro
    yesterday












up vote
15
down vote










up vote
15
down vote









When you say a = [...], a is effectively a pointer to a PyObject containing an array of pointers to PyObjects.



When you ask for a[2], the interpreter first follows the pointer to the list's PyObject, then adds 2 to the address of the array inside it, then returns that pointer. The same happens if you ask for a[0] or a[9999].



Basically, all Python objects are accessed by reference instead of by value, even integer literals like 2. There are just some tricks in the pointer system to keep this all efficient. And pointers have a known size, so they can be stored conveniently in C-style arrays.






share|improve this answer












When you say a = [...], a is effectively a pointer to a PyObject containing an array of pointers to PyObjects.



When you ask for a[2], the interpreter first follows the pointer to the list's PyObject, then adds 2 to the address of the array inside it, then returns that pointer. The same happens if you ask for a[0] or a[9999].



Basically, all Python objects are accessed by reference instead of by value, even integer literals like 2. There are just some tricks in the pointer system to keep this all efficient. And pointers have a known size, so they can be stored conveniently in C-style arrays.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered yesterday









Draconis

996616




996616







  • 4




    what is ''terp''?
    – hkBst
    yesterday










  • @hkBst I infer that it's short for "interpreter".
    – Mario Carneiro
    yesterday












  • 4




    what is ''terp''?
    – hkBst
    yesterday










  • @hkBst I infer that it's short for "interpreter".
    – Mario Carneiro
    yesterday







4




4




what is ''terp''?
– hkBst
yesterday




what is ''terp''?
– hkBst
yesterday












@hkBst I infer that it's short for "interpreter".
– Mario Carneiro
yesterday




@hkBst I infer that it's short for "interpreter".
– Mario Carneiro
yesterday










up vote
5
down vote













Short answer: Python lists are arrays.



Long answer: The computer science term list usually means either a singly-linked list (as used in functional programming) or a doubly-linked list (as used in procedural programming). These data structures support O(1) insertion at either the head of the list (functionally) or at any position that does not need to be searched for (procedurally). A Python ``list'' has none of these characteristics. Instead it supports (amortized) O(1) appending at the end of the list (like a C++ std::vector or Java ArrayList). Python lists are really resizable arrays in CS terms.






share|improve this answer
















  • 1




    I’ve never heard of singly-linked lists being specifically associated with functional programming, or doubly-linked lists being specifically associated with procedural programming. Both types of list are valid and have their use-cases for both programming paradigms (and other programming paradigms besides). Can you back up that claim? I find it quite dubious.
    – KRyan
    yesterday










  • @KRyan I'm pretty sure that Lisp, Haskell, Ocaml are all generally using singly-linked lists, especially with the more convenient primitives in the languages. Lisp in particular has a bunch of shorthand like car/cdr for getting the various parts of the list elements. Of course they're used everywhere else, but, Lisp and functional company often makes much heavier use of them. C++'s list, for example is a doubly linked list, and only recently did they get a forward_list(which is singly typed)
    – jaked122
    yesterday














up vote
5
down vote













Short answer: Python lists are arrays.



Long answer: The computer science term list usually means either a singly-linked list (as used in functional programming) or a doubly-linked list (as used in procedural programming). These data structures support O(1) insertion at either the head of the list (functionally) or at any position that does not need to be searched for (procedurally). A Python ``list'' has none of these characteristics. Instead it supports (amortized) O(1) appending at the end of the list (like a C++ std::vector or Java ArrayList). Python lists are really resizable arrays in CS terms.






share|improve this answer
















  • 1




    I’ve never heard of singly-linked lists being specifically associated with functional programming, or doubly-linked lists being specifically associated with procedural programming. Both types of list are valid and have their use-cases for both programming paradigms (and other programming paradigms besides). Can you back up that claim? I find it quite dubious.
    – KRyan
    yesterday










  • @KRyan I'm pretty sure that Lisp, Haskell, Ocaml are all generally using singly-linked lists, especially with the more convenient primitives in the languages. Lisp in particular has a bunch of shorthand like car/cdr for getting the various parts of the list elements. Of course they're used everywhere else, but, Lisp and functional company often makes much heavier use of them. C++'s list, for example is a doubly linked list, and only recently did they get a forward_list(which is singly typed)
    – jaked122
    yesterday












up vote
5
down vote










up vote
5
down vote









Short answer: Python lists are arrays.



Long answer: The computer science term list usually means either a singly-linked list (as used in functional programming) or a doubly-linked list (as used in procedural programming). These data structures support O(1) insertion at either the head of the list (functionally) or at any position that does not need to be searched for (procedurally). A Python ``list'' has none of these characteristics. Instead it supports (amortized) O(1) appending at the end of the list (like a C++ std::vector or Java ArrayList). Python lists are really resizable arrays in CS terms.






share|improve this answer












Short answer: Python lists are arrays.



Long answer: The computer science term list usually means either a singly-linked list (as used in functional programming) or a doubly-linked list (as used in procedural programming). These data structures support O(1) insertion at either the head of the list (functionally) or at any position that does not need to be searched for (procedurally). A Python ``list'' has none of these characteristics. Instead it supports (amortized) O(1) appending at the end of the list (like a C++ std::vector or Java ArrayList). Python lists are really resizable arrays in CS terms.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered yesterday









hkBst

844215




844215







  • 1




    I’ve never heard of singly-linked lists being specifically associated with functional programming, or doubly-linked lists being specifically associated with procedural programming. Both types of list are valid and have their use-cases for both programming paradigms (and other programming paradigms besides). Can you back up that claim? I find it quite dubious.
    – KRyan
    yesterday










  • @KRyan I'm pretty sure that Lisp, Haskell, Ocaml are all generally using singly-linked lists, especially with the more convenient primitives in the languages. Lisp in particular has a bunch of shorthand like car/cdr for getting the various parts of the list elements. Of course they're used everywhere else, but, Lisp and functional company often makes much heavier use of them. C++'s list, for example is a doubly linked list, and only recently did they get a forward_list(which is singly typed)
    – jaked122
    yesterday












  • 1




    I’ve never heard of singly-linked lists being specifically associated with functional programming, or doubly-linked lists being specifically associated with procedural programming. Both types of list are valid and have their use-cases for both programming paradigms (and other programming paradigms besides). Can you back up that claim? I find it quite dubious.
    – KRyan
    yesterday










  • @KRyan I'm pretty sure that Lisp, Haskell, Ocaml are all generally using singly-linked lists, especially with the more convenient primitives in the languages. Lisp in particular has a bunch of shorthand like car/cdr for getting the various parts of the list elements. Of course they're used everywhere else, but, Lisp and functional company often makes much heavier use of them. C++'s list, for example is a doubly linked list, and only recently did they get a forward_list(which is singly typed)
    – jaked122
    yesterday







1




1




I’ve never heard of singly-linked lists being specifically associated with functional programming, or doubly-linked lists being specifically associated with procedural programming. Both types of list are valid and have their use-cases for both programming paradigms (and other programming paradigms besides). Can you back up that claim? I find it quite dubious.
– KRyan
yesterday




I’ve never heard of singly-linked lists being specifically associated with functional programming, or doubly-linked lists being specifically associated with procedural programming. Both types of list are valid and have their use-cases for both programming paradigms (and other programming paradigms besides). Can you back up that claim? I find it quite dubious.
– KRyan
yesterday












@KRyan I'm pretty sure that Lisp, Haskell, Ocaml are all generally using singly-linked lists, especially with the more convenient primitives in the languages. Lisp in particular has a bunch of shorthand like car/cdr for getting the various parts of the list elements. Of course they're used everywhere else, but, Lisp and functional company often makes much heavier use of them. C++'s list, for example is a doubly linked list, and only recently did they get a forward_list(which is singly typed)
– jaked122
yesterday




@KRyan I'm pretty sure that Lisp, Haskell, Ocaml are all generally using singly-linked lists, especially with the more convenient primitives in the languages. Lisp in particular has a bunch of shorthand like car/cdr for getting the various parts of the list elements. Of course they're used everywhere else, but, Lisp and functional company often makes much heavier use of them. C++'s list, for example is a doubly linked list, and only recently did they get a forward_list(which is singly typed)
– jaked122
yesterday

















 

draft saved


draft discarded















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f52684993%2fhow-come-list-element-lookup-is-o1-in-python%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest













































































Popular posts from this blog

How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?