[FEATURE REQUEST] Add Stack Implementation Using Linked List in Java

[Ayush41]

What would you like to share?

📝 Description

The current /stacks directory in the repository includes various stack algorithms and implementations (e.g., using two queues, min stacks, postfix/prefix evaluation, etc.), but it lacks an implementation of a Stack data structure using a Linked List.

I would like to contribute a clean, well-documented implementation of StackUsingLinkedList.java under the /stacks package.

💡 Proposed Solution

Implement a StackUsingLinkedList class that supports the following standard stack operations:

• push(T data) – insert an element onto the stack
• pop() – remove and return the top element
• peek() – view the top element without removing it
• isEmpty() – check if the stack is empty
• size() – return the number of elements in the stack

Implementation Details

• Use a singly linked list (with a Node inner class) to store elements.
• Ensure O(1) time complexity for push and pop operations.
• Follow the repository’s naming conventions and JavaDocs style comments.
• Include a small main method or test snippet demonstrating the functionality.

Additional information

No response

[shubhangiBhapkar]

Hi, I would like to work on this issue as part of Hacktoberfest 2025.
Please assign it to me. Thank you!

[Shovon0004]

Hi, I would like to work on this issue .
Please assign it to me. Thank you!

[anshulsharma0424]

Hi, this is Anshul, I’d like to work on this issue!

Your proposal is clear and well-structured — implementing a StackUsingLinkedList will nicely complement the existing stack implementations. I can contribute a clean and well-documented Java solution following the repository’s conventions, including:

• A generic StackUsingLinkedList<T> class using a singly linked list
• Standard stack operations (push, pop, peek, isEmpty, size)
• JavaDocs and proper exception handling
• A short test/demo snippet in the main method

Please assign this issue to me. I’ll start working on it right away.

[Ayush41]

The issue is currently marked as "awaiting triage." Once it's reviewed and confirmed, you're welcome to contribute. Until then, please hold off.