Besides its frequent revision, DDC's main advantage over its chief American rival, theLibrary of Congress Classificationsystemdeveloped shortly afterward, is its simplicity. Thanks to the use of purenotation, a mnemonics system and a hierarchical decimal placesystem, it is generally easier to use.
DDC and UDC are more flexible than Library of Congress Classificationbecause of greater use of facets (via auxiliary tables) whileLibrary of Congress Classificationis almost totally enumerative.DDC's decimal system means that it is less hospitable to the additionof new subjects, as opposed to Library of Congress Classification,which has 21 classes at the top level. DDC notations can be muchlonger compared to other classification systems.Another disadvantage of DDC is that it was developed in the 19thcentury essentially by one man and was built on a top-down approachto classify all human knowledge, which makes it difficult to adapt tochanging fields of knowledge. The Library of Congress Classificationsystem was developed based mainly on the idea of literary warrant;classes were added (by individual experts in each area) only whenneeded for works owned by the Library of Congress. As a result, whilethe Library of Congress Classification system was able to incorporatechanges and additions of new branches of knowledge, particularly inthe fields of engineering and computer science (the greaterhospitability of the Library of Congress Classification was also a factor),DDC has been criticized for being inadequate in covering those areas.It is asserted that, as a result, most major academic libraries in the USdo not use the DDC because the classification of works in those areasis not specific enough, although there are other reasons that may trulybe more weighty, such as the much lower expense of using a unique"pre-packaged" catalog number instead of having highly skilled staff members engaging in the time-consuming development of catalognumbers.The Library of Congress Classification system is not without problems.For example, it is highly US-centric because of the nature of thesystem, and it has been translated into far fewer languages than DDCand UDC.