Also - if I see someone try to use a linked list for an enormous data structure again.... Wow it does not scale worth crap because it turns out that the hardware is actually important, and contiguous memory is amazing.
I agree, but in a way opposite to what you intended. An experienced developer[0] should be able to look at a situation like this and realize that few more minutes of focus can yield a better (array-based vs. list-based) implementation[1]. There are no downsides to that (arrays were only slightly less convenient in that case, syntax-wise), improvements occur regardless of scale. The list-based solution was a bad one at the scale it was originally written for handling.
I believe a hallmark of an experienced developer is writing performant code from the get-go; this is accomplished by not making stupid mistakes like this, and it costs pretty much nothing in terms of coding time or code complexity. All it takes is a little knowledge and caring about the product's performance.
--
[0] - I hesitate to use the word "senior", because to me, whether it means anything depends on the company one works in. In many, a "senior" developer is just the one that came before all the "junior" hires, and it doesn't matter that that developer is a fresh bootcamp graduate. And once you can put "senior X developer" on your CV, it's likely your next job will give you seniorship immediately as well.
[1] - and an extra few more minutes would give an implementation that doesn't allocate new memory unnecessarily - also a huge performance win.
Or a hashmap to prepare 3 variables to pass to Json serialization.
Curious - what would be your solution? Just creating the json directly as strings / bytes?
It occurs to me that I don't know whether any of the major dynamic language implementations with maps/dicts/hashes as a central data structure use a similar approach for very small ones… huh.