Following the rules that a public APIs should never return a list, i'm blinding converting all code that returned lists, to return ICollection<T> instead:
public IList<T> CommaSeparate(String value) {...}
becomes
public ICollection<T> CommaSeparate(String value) {...}
And although an ICollection has a Count, there is no way to get items by that index.
And although an ICollection exposes an enumerator (allowing foreach), i see no guarantee that the order of enumeration starts at the "top" of the list, as opposed to the "bottom".
i could mitigate this by avoiding the use of ICollection, and instead use Collection:
public Collection<T> Commaseparate(String value) {...}
This allows the use of an Items[index] syntax.
Unfortunately, my internal implementation constructs an array; which i can be cast to return IList or ICollection, but not as a Collection.
Is there a ways to access items of a collection in order?
This begs the wider question: Does an ICollection even have an order?
Conceptually, imagine i want to parse a command line string. It is critical that the order of items be maintained.
Conceptually, i require a contract that indicates an "ordered" set of string tuples. In the case of an API contract, to indicate order, which of the following is correct:
IEnumerable<String> Grob(string s)
ICollection<String> Grob(string s)
IList<String> Grob(string s)
Collection<String> Grob(string s)
List<String> Grob(string s)
The ICollection<T> interface doesn't specify anything about an order. The objects will be in the order specified by the object returned. For example, if you return the Values collection of a SortedDictionary, the objects will be in the the order defined by the dictionary's comparer.
If you need the method to return, by contract, a type whose contract requires a certain order, then you should express that in the method's signature by returning the more specific type.
Regardless of the runtime type of the object returned, consider the behavior when the static reference is IList<T> or ICollection<T>: When you call GetEnumerator() (perhaps implicitly in a foreach loop), you're going to call the same method and get the same object regardless of the static type of the reference. It will therefore behave the same way regardless of the CommaSeparate() method's return type.
Additional thought:
As someone else pointed out, the FXCop rule warns against using List<T>, not IList<T>; the question you linked to is asking why FXCop doesn't recommend using IList<T> in place of List<T>, which is another matter. If I imagine that you are parsing a command-line string where order is important, I would stick with IList<T> if I were you.
ICollection does not have a guaranteed order, but the class that actually implements it may (or may not).
If you want to return an ordered collection, then return an IList<T> and don't get too hung up on FxCop's generally sound, but very generic, advice.
No, ICollection does not imply an order.
The ICollection instance has the "order" of whatever class that implements it. That is, referencing a List<T> as an ICollection will not alter its order at all.
Likewise, if you access an unordered collection as an ICollection, it will not impose an order on the unordered collection either.
So, to your question:
Does an ICollection even have an order?
The answer is: it depends solely on the class that implements it.
ICollection<T> may have an order, but the actual ordering depends on the class implementing it.
It does not have accesor for an item at given index. IList<T> specializes this interface to provide access by index.
An ICollection<T> is just an interface; whether it's ordered or not is entirely dependent up the implementation underlying it (which is supposed to be opaque).
If you want to be able to access it by index, you'd want to return things as an IList<T>, which is both IEnumerable<T> and ICollection<T>. One should bear in mind, though, that depending on the underlying implementation, that getting at an arbitrary item in the collection could require O(N/2) time on the average.
My inclination would be to avoid the 'collection' interfaces altogether and instead use a custom type representing the collection in terms of the problem domain and exposing the appropriate logical operations suitable for that type.
ICollection is just an interface—there is no implementation or explicit specification about ordering. That means if you return something that enumerates in an ordered manner, whatever is consuming your ICollection will do so in an ordered manner.
Order is only implied by the underlying, implementing, object. There is no specification in ICollection that says it should be ordered or not. Enumerating over a result multiple times will invoke the underlying object's enumerator, which is the only place that those rules would be set. An object doesn't change the way it is enumerated just because it inherits this interface. Had the interface specified that it is an ordered result, then you could safely rely on the ordered result of the implementing object.
It depends on the implementation of the instance. An ICollection that happens to be a List has an order, an ICollection that happens to be a Collection does not.
All ICollections implement IEnumerable, which returns the items one at a time, ordered or otherwise.
EDIT: In reply to your additional example about command line parsing in the question, I would argue that the appropriate return type depends on what you are doing with those arguments afterward, but IEnumerable is probably the right one.
My reasoning is that IList, ICollection, and their concrete implementations permit modification of the list returned from Grob, which you probably don't want. Since .NET doesn't have an Indexed Sequence interface, IEnumerable is the best bet to prevent your callers from doing something weird like trying to modify the parameter list that they get back.
If you expect that all present and future versions of your method will have no difficulty returning an object that will be able to quickly and easily retrieve the Nth item, use type IList<T> to return a reference to something that implements both IList<T> and non-generic ICollection. If you expect that some present or future versions might not be able to quickly and easily return the Nth item, but would be able to instantly report the number of items, use type ICollection<T> to return a reference something that implements ICollection<T> and non-generic ICollection. If you expect that present or future versions may have trouble even knowing how many items there are, return IEnumerable<T>. The question of sequencing is irrelevant; the ability to access the Nth thing implies that a defined sequence exists, but ICollection<T> says neither more nor less about sequencing than IEnumerable<T>.
Related
If I'm serializing a collection of objects, what's the minimum type to guarantee that the collection is materialized (and not the result of an expression)?
e.g.. this should not be possible:
var message = new MyMessage {
Recipients = someCollection.Select... // <- this can't be deserialized without calling ToList()
}
I know IList would do the job, but want to know if this is the minimum requirement.
I know IList would do the job
Actually, it would not. No interface can ever possibly have such a guarantee, because I can always make an implementation of that interface that defers materialization of any query until some of the interface methods are called. Now, by convention, a type implementing IList would be a materialized collection, and not something deferring work, but that is not a guarantee.
To have a guarantee you'll need to use a concrete type rather than an interface, accepting an array, List, etc.
Of course one option that you have is to accept an interface such as IEnumerable and then materialize it into a collection yourself (possibly as a 3rd overload with overloads for arrays and lists to avoid the need to re-materialize those) because if you've materialized it yourself then you know it's not deferring execution.
You can't. Whether a collection is materialized or a query is ultimately an implementation detail that is not exposed via any normal public API. However, if you want to be reasonably sure given common types, you can use ICollection<T>.
ICollection<T> requires that the Count be available. IList<T> further requires that you can access elements by index. Since you don't appear to need anything beyond IEnumerable<T>, I'd recommend ICollection<T>, e.g.
public ICollection<Recipient> Recipients { get; set; }
It may also be useful for you to create an IMaterialized or IMaterializedEnumerable<T> : IEnumerable<T> marker interface and class(es) that implement it, if ensuring that a collection is materialized is more important than being able to easily use built-in types and methods.
I have got a question about the order in IEnumerable.
As far as I am aware, iterating through IEnumerable is pseudo-code can be written in the following way:
while (enumerable.HasNext())
{
object obj = enumerable.Current;
...
}
Now, assume, that one needs to operate on a sorted collection. Can IEnumerable be used in this case or is it better to try other means (i.e. IList) with indexation support?
In other words: does the contract of IEnumerable make any guarantees about the order in general?
So, IEnumerable is not a proper mean for a generic interface that guarantees ordering. The new question is what interface or class should be used for an immutable collection with order? ReadonlyCollection? IList? Both of them contain Add() method (even is not implemented in the former one).
My own thoughts: IEnumerable does not provide any guarantees about the ordering. The correct implementation could return same elements in different order in different enumerations (consider an SQL query)
I am aware of LINQ First(), but if IEnumerable does not say a word about it's ordering, this extension is pretty useless.
IEnumerable/IEnumerable<T> makes no guarantees about ordering, but the implementations that use IEnumerable/IEnumerable<T>may or may not guarantee ordering.
For instance, if you enumerate List<T>, order is guaranteed, but if you enumerate HashSet<T> no such guarantee is provided, yet both will be enumerated using the IEnumerable<T> interface.
Implementation detail. IEnumerable will enumerate the item - how that is implemented is up to the implementation. MOST lists etc. run along their natural order (index 0 upward etc.).
does the contract of IEnumerable guarantee us some order in general case?
No, it guarantees enumeration only (every item one time etc.). IEnumerable has no guaranteed order because it is also usable on unordered items.
I know about LINQ First(), but if IEnumerable does not say a word about it's order, this extension is rather useless.
No, it is not, because you may have intrinsic order. You give SQL as example - the result is an IEnumerable, but if I have enforced ordering before (By using OrderBy()) then the IEnumerable is ordered per definition of LINQ. AsEnumerable().First() gets me then the first item by Order.
Perhaps you are looking for the IOrderedEnumerable interface? It is returned by extensions methods like OrderBy() and allow for subsequent sorting with ThenBy().
You mix two points: enumerating and ordering.
When you enumerate over IEnumerable you should not care about order. You work with the interface, and its implementation should care about order.
For instance:
void Enumerate(IEnumerable sequence)
{
// loop
}
SortedList<T> sortedList = ...
Enumerate (sortedList);
Inside the method it's still a list with fixed order, but method doesn't know about particular interface implementation and it's peculiarity.
I am confused about which collection type that I should return from my public API methods and properties.
The collections that I have in mind are IList, ICollection and Collection.
Is returning one of these types always preferred over the others, or does it depend on the specific situation?
ICollection<T> is an interface that exposes collection semantics such as Add(), Remove(), and Count.
Collection<T> is a concrete implementation of the ICollection<T> interface.
IList<T> is essentially an ICollection<T> with random order-based access.
In this case you should decide whether or not your results require list semantics such as order based indexing (then use IList<T>) or whether you just need to return an unordered "bag" of results (then use ICollection<T>).
Generally you should return a type that is as general as possible, i.e. one that knows just enough of the returned data that the consumer needs to use. That way you have greater freedom to change the implementation of the API, without breaking the code that is using it.
Consider also the IEnumerable<T> interface as return type. If the result is only going to be iterated, the consumer doesn't need more than that.
The main difference between the IList<T> and ICollection<T> interfaces is that IList<T> allows you to access elements via an index. IList<T> describes array-like types. Elements in an ICollection<T> can only be accessed through enumeration. Both allow the insertion and deletion of elements.
If you only need to enumerate a collection, then IEnumerable<T> is to be preferred. It has two advantages over the others:
It disallows changes to the collection (but not to the elements, if they are of reference type).
It allows the largest possible variety of sources, including enumerations that are generated algorithmically and are not collections at all.
Allows lazy evaluation and can be queried with LINQ.
Collection<T> is a base class that is mainly useful to implementers of collections. If you expose it in interfaces (APIs), many useful collections not deriving from it will be excluded.
One disadvantage of IList<T> is that arrays implement it but do not allow you to add or remove items (i.e. you cannot change the array length). An exception will be thrown if you call IList<T>.Add(item) on an array. The situation is somewhat defused as IList<T> has a Boolean property IsReadOnly that you can check before attempting to do so. But in my eyes, this is still a design flaw in the library. Therefore, I use List<T> directly, when the possibility to add or remove items is required.
Which one should I choose? Let's consider just List<T> and IEnumerable<T> as examples for specialized / generalized types:
Method input parameter
IEnumerable<T> greatest flexibility for the caller. Restrictive for the implementer, read-only.
List<T> Restrictive for the caller. Gives flexibility to the implementer, can manipulate the collection.
Method ouput parameter or return value
IEnumerable<T> Restrictive for the caller, read-only. Greatest flexibility for the implementer. Allows to return about any collection or to implement an iterator (yield return).
List<T> Greatest flexibility for the caller, can manipulate the returned collection. Restrictive for the implementer.
Well, at this point you may be disappointed because I don't give you a simple answer. A statement like "always use this for input and that for output" would not be constructive. The reality is that it depends on use case. A method like void AddMissingEntries(TColl collection) will have to provide a collection type having an Add method or may even require a HashSet<T> for efficiency. A method void PrintItems(TColl collection) can happily live with an IEnumerable<T>.
IList<T> is the base interface for all generic lists. Since it is an ordered collection, the implementation can decide on the ordering, ranging from sorted order to insertion order. Moreover Ilist has Item property that allows methods to read and edit entries in the list based on their index.
This makes it possible to insert, remove a value into/from the list at a position index.
Also since IList<T> : ICollection<T>, all the methods from ICollection<T> are also available here for implementation.
ICollection<T> is the base interface for all generic collections. It defines size, enumerators and synchronization methods. You can add or remove an item into a collection but you cannot choose at which position it happens due to the absence of index property.
Collection<T> provides an implementation for IList<T>, IList and IReadOnlyList<T>.
If you use a narrower interface type such as ICollection<T> instead of IList<T>, you protect your code against breaking changes. If you use a wider interface type such as IList<T>, you are more in danger of breaking code changes.
Quoting from a source,
ICollection, ICollection<T> : You want to modify the collection or
you care about its size.
IList, IList<T>: You want to modify the collection and you care about the ordering and / or positioning of the elements in the collection.
Returning an interface type is more general, so (lacking further information on your specific use case) I'd lean towards that. If you want to expose indexing support, choose IList<T>, otherwise ICollection<T> will suffice. Finally, if you want to indicate that the returned types are read only, choose IEnumerable<T>.
And, in case you haven't read it before, Brad Abrams and Krzysztof Cwalina wrote a great book titled "Framework Design Guidelines: Conventions, Idioms, and Patterns for Reusable .NET Libraries" (you can download a digest from here).
There are some subjects that come from this question:
interfaces versus classes
which specific class, from several alike classes, collection, list, array ?
Common classes versus subitem ("generics") collections
You may want to highlight that its an Object Oriented A.P.I.
interfaces versus classes
If you don't have much experience with interfaces, I recommend stick to classes.
I see a lot of times of developers jumping to interfaces, even if its not necesarilly.
And, end doing a poor interface design, instead of, a good class design,
which, by the way, can eventually, be migrated to a good interface design ...
You'll see a lot of interfaces in A.P.I., but, don't rush to it,
if you don't need it.
You will eventually learn how to apply interfaces, to your code.
which specific class, from several alike classes, collection, list, array ?
There are several classes in c# (dotnet) that can be interchanged. As already mention, if you need something from a more specific class, such as "CanBeSortedClass", then make it explicit in your A.P.I..
Does your A.P.I. user really needs to know, that your class can be sorted, or apply some format to the elements ? Then use "CanBeSortedClass" or "ElementsCanBePaintedClass",
otherwise use "GenericBrandClass".
Otherwise, use a more general class.
Common collection classes versus subitem ("generics") collections
You'll find that there are classes that contains others elements,
and you can specify that all elements should be of an specific type.
Generic Collections are those classes that you can use the same collection,
for several code applications, without having to create a new collection,
for each new subitem type, like this: Collection.
Does your A.P.I. user is going to need a very specific type, same for all elements ?
Use something like List<WashingtonApple> .
Does your A.P.I. user is going to need several related types ?
Expose List<Fruit> for your A.P.I., and use List<Orange> List<Banana>, List<Strawberry> internally, where Orange, Banana and Strawberry are descendants from Fruit .
Does your A.P.I. user is going to need a generic type collection ?
Use List, where all items are object (s).
Cheers.
See the definition of System.Array class
public abstract class Array : IList, ...
Theoretically, I should be able to write this bit and be happy
int[] list = new int[] {};
IList iList = (IList)list;
I also should be able to call any method from the iList
ilist.Add(1); //exception here
My question is not why I get an exception, but rather why Array implements IList?
Because an array allows fast access by index, and IList/IList<T> are the only collection interfaces that support this. So perhaps your real question is "Why is there no interface for constant collections with indexers?" And to that I have no answer.
There are no readonly interfaces for collections either. And I'm missing those even more than a constant sized with indexers interface.
IMO there should be several more (generic) collection interfaces depending on the features of a collection. And the names should have been different too, List for something with an indexer is really stupid IMO.
Just Enumeration IEnumerable<T>
Readonly but no indexer (.Count, .Contains,...)
Resizable but no indexer, i.e. set like (Add, Remove,...) current ICollection<T>
Readonly with indexer (indexer, indexof,...)
Constant size with indexer (indexer with a setter)
Variable size with indexer (Insert,...) current IList<T>
I think the current collection interfaces are bad design. But since they have properties telling you which methods are valid (and this is part of the contract of these methods), it doesn't break the substitution principle.
The remarks section of the documentation for IList says:
IList is a descendant of the
ICollection interface and is the base
interface of all non-generic lists.
IList implementations fall into three
categories: read-only, fixed-size, and
variable-size. A read-only IList
cannot be modified. A fixed-size IList
does not allow the addition or removal
of elements, but it allows the
modification of existing elements. A
variable-size IList allows the
addition, removal, and modification of
elements.
Obviously, arrays fall into the fixed-size category, so by the definition of the interface it makes sense.
Because not all ILists are mutable (see IList.IsFixedSize and IList.IsReadOnly), and arrays certainly behave like fixed-size lists.
If your question is really "why does it implement a non-generic interface", then the answer is that these were around before generics came along.
It's a legacy that we have from the times when it wasn't clear how to deal with read only collections and whether or not Array is read only. There are IsFixedSize and IsReadOnly flags in the IList interface. IsReadOnly flag means that collection can't be changed at all and IsFixedSize means that collection does allow modification, but not adding or removal of items.
At the time of .Net 4.5 it was clear that some "intermediate" interfaces are required to work with read only collections, so IReadOnlyCollection<T> and IReadOnlyList<T> were introduced.
Here is a great blog post describing the details: Read only collections in .NET
Definition of IList interface is "Represents a non-generic collection of objects that can be individually accessed by index.". Array completely satisfies this definition, so must implement the interface.
Exception when calling Add() method is "System.NotSupportedException: Collection was of a fixed size" and occurred because array can not increase its capacity dynamically. Its capacity is defined during creation of array object.
Having an array implement IList (and transitively, ICollection) simplified the Linq2Objects engine, since casting the IEnumerable to IList/ICollection would also work for arrays.
For example, a Count() ends up calling the Array.Length under-the-hood, since it's casted to ICollection and the array's implementation returns Length.
Without this, the Linq2Objects engine would not have special treatment for arrays and perform horribly, or they'd need to double the code adding special-case treatment for arrays (like they do for IList). They must've opted to make array implement IList instead.
That's my take on "Why".
Also implementation details LINQ Last checks for IList , if it did not implement list they would need either 2 checks slowing down all Last calls or have Last on an Array taking O(N)
An Array is just one of many possible implementations of IList.
As code should be loosely coupled, depend on abstractions and what not... The concrete implementation of IList that uses consecutive memory (an array) to store it's values is called Array. We do not "add" IList to the Array class that's just the wrong order of reasoning; Array implements IList as an array.
The exception is exactly what the interface defines. It is not a surprise if you know the whole interface not just a single method. The interface also give you the opportunity to check the IsFixedSize property and see if it is safe to call the Add method.
When I'm writing my DAL or other code that returns a set of items, should I always make my return statement:
public IEnumerable<FooBar> GetRecentItems()
or
public IList<FooBar> GetRecentItems()
Currently, in my code I have been trying to use IEnumerable as much as possible but I'm not sure if this is best practice? It seemed right because I was returning the most generic datatype while still being descriptive of what it does, but perhaps this isn't correct to do.
Framework design guidelines recommend using the class Collection when you need to return a collection that is modifiable by the caller or ReadOnlyCollection for read only collections.
The reason this is preferred to a simple IList is that IList does not inform the caller if its read only or not.
If you return an IEnumerable<T> instead, certain operations may be a little trickier for the caller to perform. Also you no longer will give the caller the flexibility to modify the collection, something that you may or may not want.
Keep in mind that LINQ contains a few tricks up its sleeve and will optimize certain calls based on the type they are performed on. So, for example, if you perform a Count and the underlying collection is a List it will NOT walk through all the elements.
Personally, for an ORM I would probably stick with Collection<T> as my return value.
It really depends on why you are using that specific interface.
For example, IList<T> has several methods that aren't present in IEnumerable<T>:
IndexOf(T item)
Insert(int index, T item)
RemoveAt(int index)
and Properties:
T this[int index] { get; set; }
If you need these methods in any way, then by all means return IList<T>.
Also, if the method that consumes your IEnumerable<T> result is expecting an IList<T>, it will save the CLR from considering any conversions required, thus optimizing the compiled code.
In general, you should require the most generic and return the most specific thing that you can. So if you have a method that takes a parameter, and you only really need what's available in IEnumerable, then that should be your parameter type. If your method could return either an IList or an IEnumerable, prefer returning IList. This ensures that it is usable by the widest range of consumers.
Be loose in what you require, and explicit in what you provide.
That depends...
Returning the least derived type (IEnumerable) will leave you the most leeway to change the underlying implementation down the track.
Returning a more derived type (IList) provides the users of your API with more operations on the result.
I would always suggest returning the least derived type that has all the operations your users are going to need... so basically, you first have to deremine what operations on the result make sense in the context of the API you are defining.
One thing to consider is that if you're using a deferred-execution LINQ statement to generate your IEnumerable<T>, calling .ToList() before you return from your method means that your items may be iterated twice - once to create the List, and once when the caller loops through, filters, or transforms your return value. When practical, I like to avoid converting the results of LINQ-to-Objects to a concrete List or Dictionary until I have to. If my caller needs a List, that's a single easy method call away - I don't need to make that decision for them, and that makes my code slightly more efficient in the cases where the caller is just doing a foreach.
List<T> offers the calling code many more features, such as modifying the returned object and access by index. So the question boils down to: in your application's specific use case, do you WANT to support such uses (presumably by returning a freshly constructed collection!), for the caller's convenience -- or do you want speed for the simple case when all the caller needs is to loop through the collection and you can safely return a reference to a real underlying collection without fearing this will get it erroneously changed, etc?
Only you can answer this question, and only by understanding well what your callers will want to do with the return value, and how important performance is here (how big are the collections you would be copying, how likely is this to be a bottleneck, etc).
I think you can use either, but each has a use. Basically List is IEnumerable but you have
count functionality, add element, remove element
IEnumerable is not efficient for counting elements
If the collection is intended to be readonly, or the modification of the collection is controlled by the Parent then returning an IList just for Count is not a good idea.
In Linq, there is a Count() extension method on IEnumerable<T> which inside the CLR will shortcut to .Count if the underlying type is of IList, so performance difference is negligible.
Generally I feel (opinion) it is better practice to return IEnumerable where possible, if you need to do additions then add these methods to the parent class, otherwise the consumer is then managing the collection within Model which violates the principles, e.g. manufacturer.Models.Add(model) violates law of demeter. Of course these are just guidelines and not hard and fast rules, but until you have full grasps of applicability, following blindly is better than not following at all.
public interface IManufacturer
{
IEnumerable<Model> Models {get;}
void AddModel(Model model);
}
(Note: If using nNHibernate you might need to map to private IList using different accessors.)
It's not so simple when you are talking about return values instead of input parameters. When it's an input parameter, you know exactly what you need to do. So, if you need to be able to iterate over the collection, you take an IEnumberable whereas if you need to add or remove, you take an IList.
In the case of a return value, it's tougher. What does your caller expect? If you return an IEnumerable, then he will not know a priori that he can make an IList out of it. But, if you return an IList, he will know that he can iterate over it. So, you have to take into account what your caller is going to do with the data. The functionality that your caller needs/expects is what should govern when making the decision on what to return.
TL; DR; – summary
If you develop in-house software, do use the specific type(Like List) for the return
values and the most generic type for input parameters even in case of collections.
If a method is a part of a redistributable library’s public API, use
interfaces instead of concrete collection types to introduce both return values and input parameters.
If a method returns a read-only collection, show that by using IReadOnlyList or IReadOnlyCollection as the return value type.
More
as all have said it depends,
if you don't want Add/Remove functioanlity at calling layer then i will vote for IEnumerable as it provides only iteration and basic functionality which in design prespective i like.
Returning IList my votes are always againist it but it's mainly what you like and what not.
in performance terms i think they are more of same.
If you do not counting in your external code it is always better to return IEnumerable, because later you can change your implementation (without external code impact), for example, for yield iterator logic and conserve memory resources (very good language feature by the way).
However if you need items count, don't forget that there is another layer between IEnumerable and IList - ICollection.
I might be a bit off here, seeing that no one else suggested it so far, but why don't you return an (I)Collection<T>?
From what I remember, Collection<T> was the preferred return type over List<T> because it abstracts away the implementation. They all implement IEnumerable, but that sounds to me a bit too low-level for the job.
I think you can use either, but each has a use. Basically List is IEnumerable but you have count functionality, Add element, remove element
IEnumerable is not efficient for counting elements, or getting a specific element in the collection.
List is a collection which is ideally suited to finding specific elements, easy to add elements, or remove them.
Generally I try to use List where possible as this gives me more flexibility.
Use
List<FooBar> getRecentItems()
rather than
IList<FooBar> GetRecentItems()
I think the general rule is to use the more specific class to return, to avoid doing unneeded work and give your caller more options.
That said, I think it's more important to consider the code in front of you which you are writing than the code the next guy will write (within reason.) This is because you can make assumptions about the code that already exists.
Remember that moving UP to a collection from IEnumerable in an interface will work, moving down to IEnumerable from a collection will break existing code.
If these opinions all seem conflicted, it's because the decision is subjective.
IEnumerable<T> contains a small subset of what is inside List<T>, which contains the same stuff as IEnumerable<T> but more! You only use IEnumerable<T> if you want a smaller set of features. Use List<T> if you plan to use a larger, richer set of features.
The Pizza Explanation
Here is a much more comprehensive explanation of why you would use an Interface like IEnumerable<T> versus List<T>, or vise versa, when instantiating objects in C languages like Microsoft C#.
Think of Interfaces like IEnumerable<T> and IList<T> as the individual ingredients in a pizza (pepperoni, mushrooms, black olives...) and concrete classes like List<T> as the pizza. List<T> is in fact a Supreme Pizza that always contains all the Interface ingredients combined (ICollection, IEnumerable, IList, etc).
What you get as far as a pizza and its toppings is determined by how you "type" your list when you create its object reference in memory. You have to declare the type of pizza you are cooking as follows:
// Pepperoni Pizza: This gives you a single Interface's members,
// or a pizza with one topping because List<T> is limited to
// acting like an IEnumerable<T> type.
IEnumerable<string> pepperoniPizza = new List<string>();
// Supreme Pizza: This gives you access to ALL 8 Interface
// members combined or a pizza with ALL the ingredients
// because List type uses all Interfaces!!
IList<string> supremePizza = new List<string>();
Note you cannot instantiate an Interface as itself (or eat raw pepperoni). When you instantiate List<T> as one Interface type like IEnumerable<T> you only have access to its Implementations and get the pepperoni pizza with one topping. You can only access IEnumerable<T> members and cannot see all the other Interface members in List<T>.
When List<T> is instantiated as IList<T> it implements all 8 Interfaces, so it has access to all the members of all the Interfaces it has implemented (or a Supreme Pizza toppings)!
Here is the List<T> class, showing you WHY that is. Notice the List<T> in the .NET Library has implemented all the other Interfaces including IList!! But IEnumerable<T> implements just a small subsection of those List Interface members.
public class List<T> :
ICollection<T>,
IEnumerable<T>,
IEnumerable,
IList<T>,
IReadOnlyCollection<T>,
IReadOnlyList<T>,
ICollection,
IList
{
// List<T> types implement all these goodies and more!
public List();
public List(IEnumerable<T> collection);
public List(int capacity);
public T this[int index] { get; set; }
public int Count { get; }
public int Capacity { get; set; }
public void Add(T item);
public void AddRange(IEnumerable<T> collection);
public ReadOnlyCollection<T> AsReadOnly();
public bool Exists(Predicate<T> match);
public T Find(Predicate<T> match);
public void ForEach(Action<T> action);
public void RemoveAt(int index);
public void Sort(Comparison<T> comparison);
// ......and much more....
}
So why NOT instantiate List<T> as List<T> ALL THE TIME?
Instantiating a List<T> as List<T> gives you access to all Interface members! But you might not need everything. Choosing one Interface type allows your application to store a smaller object with less members and keeps your application tight. Who needs Supreme Pizza every time?
But there is a second reason for using Interface types: Flexibility. Because other types in .NET, including your own custom ones, might use the same "popular" Interface type, it means you can later substitute your List<T> type with any other type that implements, say IEnumerable<T>. If your variable is an Interface type, you can now switch out the object created with something other than List<T>. Dependency Injection is a good example of this type of flexibility using Interfaces rather than concrete types, and why you might want to create objects using Interfaces.