Which is better to use? Lightroom or Photoshop?

Completely agree

I prefer to use Photoshop. Back when I started with Photoshop, Lightroom did not exist yet. So I am used to working with Photoshop. In Lightroom, the tools are not always in the same place as in Photoshop, and that is confusing for me. I then have to search.
A major advantage of Photoshop for me is working with layers. You can put all edits in separate (adjustment) layers. You can give layers different opacity. If an edit in a layer does not turn out well, you only have to delete that layer and do it again. You do not have that option in Lightroom. In addition, certain edits are not possible in Lightroom and you still have to use Photoshop. So I do not have to switch from Lr to Ps.
I admit that Lightroom has improved enormously in recent years and that the Develop module is increasingly resembling ACR and the tools are being placed in the same locations. On the other hand, I think Lightroom's library is really great. Bridge cannot hold a candle to that.
Purely because I started years ago and have continued to follow the developments in Ps, I use Photoshop by default for developing photos. I mainly use Lightroom for the library function.
I do take courses related to Lightroom's Develop module, but purely so I also know the necessary things about it.

I was just starting to find my way around PS a bit when they came up with LR. I have my own system for organizing photos, so I don't need it for that either. Maybe some edits are a bit easier to do in LR than in PS, but I can manage perfectly well without it

@Thoni: Expensive??? The subscription to Adobe's photography plan with everything included costs €12.09 per month. That is still much cheaper than driving a car for a month.

Just responding to Thoni, Donald and pixeldude: PS is expensive in the sense that in the Netherlands people want to have everything for free, and being afflicted with that ailment myself, I bought a licence for Affinity at the time after a review of it. Turned out to be money thrown away in my case, because I never got the hang of it. The things I use most in PS (quick retouching brush, brightness/contrast and hue and saturation) I couldn't manage (well) in Affinity.
My daughter can, though I often see her spending much longer on certain adjustments than I need for them.
As for the article itself: I've also been busy with photography for a very long time, and since 98 I've been tinkering with PS (version 4.5 for Mac at the time), initially mainly to preserve my negatives and slides and give them a second life, and later of course for 'developing' my NEFs. When Lightroom came along I tinkered with that a bit, but especially the automatic storage, or rather the management, put me off so much that I never continued with it, whereas I think Adobe raw is fantastic.

It doesn't have to be free as far as I'm concerned, but I'm less keen on the subscription idea, I've always been able to get by for years with a certain version of PS, take a look at what's new and then decide whether to go for the new version or stick with the old one for a bit longer. Now you almost feel obliged to go along with every upgrade and I get stuff with it that I don't use at all such as LR and the pro app versions, I'd rather have the old principle back and that's why I'm also looking at what the competition can offer for stand alone versions instead of cloud versions

@Stefanie: There are a few good solutions for you if you want 'stand alone' versions. For example, take a look at Photoshop Elements or Luminar Neo. Beware: with Luminar Neo you can choose a subscription version or a stand alone' version. With Luminar Neo, besides the stand alone version, you also have the option to purchase extensions. It's entirely up to you.

Absolutely, Photoshop and Lightrom are two excellent programs.
I had a subscription for 2 years, but stopped it because it cost me too much for the few photos I took each year, around 2500 per year, which after sorting resulted in a good hundred.
I bought a final version of Lightroom (130 euros), I found the Library features excellent, as well as the various Collections for example, etc.
Currently I have turned to Affinity, which at this stage offers me everything I need, and this for a small price.
For professional photographers or wealthy amateurs I am sure that Adobe's subscription package is perfect.

@pixeldude
Yes, a few years ago now, I read a review about Affinity Photo, with very complimentary words, after which I bought it. But partly due to the lack of a clear Dutch user manual and the strange layout, I never figured out how to achieve good results with it (literally never managed to edit a photo to my satisfaction).
My daughter, on the other hand, does everything with it.
However, I should mention that I haven't opened it for months, simply too frustrated.