Comparison DDC between LCC

Classification

Besides its frequent revision, DDC's main advantage over its chief
American rival, the Library of Congress Classification system
developed shortly afterward, is its simplicity. Thanks to the use of pure
notation, a mnemonics system and a hierarchical decimal place
system, it is generally easier to use.[citation needed]

DDC and UDC are more flexible than Library of Congress Classification
because of greater use of facets (via auxiliary tables) while Library of
Congress Classification is almost totally enumerative.

DDC's decimal system means that it is less hospitable to the addition

of new subjects, as opposed to Library of Congress Classification,
which has 21 classes at the top level. DDC notations can be much
longer compared to other classification systems.

Another disadvantage of DDC is that it was developed in the 19th

century essentially by one man and was built on a top-down approach
to classify all human knowledge, which makes it difficult to adapt to
changing fields of knowledge. The Library of Congress Classification
system was developed based mainly on the idea of literary warrant;
classes were added (by individual experts in each area) only when
needed for works owned by the Library of Congress. As a result, while
the Library of Congress Classification system was able to incorporate
changes and additions of new branches of knowledge, particularly in
the fields of engineering and computer science (the greater
hospitability 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 US
do not use the DDC because the classification of works in those areas
is not specific enough, although there are other reasons that may truly
be 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 catalog
numbers.

The Library of Congress Classification system is not without problems.

For example, it is highly US-centric because of the nature of the
system, and it has been translated into far fewer languages than DDC
and UDC.