Develop Reference

C# sort List<int> recursively

there's an exercise i need to do, given a List i need to sort the content using ONLY recursive methods (no while, do while, for, foreach).
So... i'm struggling (for over 2 hours now) and i dont know how to even begin.
The function must be
List<int> SortHighestToLowest (List<int> list) {
}
I THINK i should check if the previous number is greater than the actual number and so on but what if the last number is greater than the first number on the list?, that's why im having a headache.
I appreciate your help, thanks a lot.
[EDIT]
I delivered the exercise but then teacher said i shouldn't use external variables like i did here:
List<int> _tempList2 = new List<int>();
int _actualListIndex = 0;
int _actualMaxNumber = 0;
int _actualMaxNumberIndex = 0;
List<int> SortHighestToLowest(List<int> list)
{
if (list.Count == 0)
return _tempList2;
if (_actualListIndex == 0)
_actualMaxNumber = list[0];
if (_actualListIndex < list.Count -1)
{
_actualListIndex++;
if (list[_actualListIndex] > _actualMaxNumber)
{
_actualMaxNumberIndex = _actualListIndex;
_actualMaxNumber = list[_actualListIndex];
}
return SortHighestToLowest(list);
}
_tempList2.Add(_actualMaxNumber);
list.RemoveAt(_actualMaxNumberIndex);
_actualListIndex = 0;
_actualMaxNumberIndex = 0;
return SortHighestToLowest(list);
}
Exercise is done and i approved (thanks to other exercises as well) but i was wondering if there's a way of doing this without external variables and without using System.Linq like String.Empty's response (im just curious, the community helped me to solve my issue and im thankful).

I am taking your instructions to the letter here.
Only recursive methods
No while, do while, for, foreach
Signature must be List<int> SortHighestToLowest(List<int> list)
Now, I do assume you may use at least the built-in properties and methods of the List<T> type. If not, you would have a hard time even reading the elements of your list.
That said, any calls to Sort or OrderBy methods would be beyond the point here, since they would render any recursive method useless.
I also assume it is okay to use other lists in the process, since you didn't mention anything in regards to that.
With all that in mind, I came to this piece below, making use of Max and Remove methods from List<T> class, and a new list of integers for each recursive call:
public static List<int> SortHighestToLowest(List<int> list)
{
// recursivity breaker
if (list.Count <= 1)
return list;
// remove highest item
var max = list.Max();
list.Remove(max);
// append highest item to recursive call for the remainder of the list
return new List<int>(SortHighestToLowest(list)) { max };
}

For solving this problem, try to solve smaller subsets. Consider the following list
[1,5,3,2]
Let's take the last element out of list, and consider the rest as sorted which will be [1,3,5] and 2. Now the problem reduces to another problem of inserting this 2 in its correct position. If we can insert it in correct position then the array becomes sorted. This can be applied recursively.
For every recursive problem there should be a base condition w.r.t the hypothesis we make. For the first problem the base condition is array with single element. A single element array is always sorted.
For the second insert problem the base condition will be an empty array or the last element in array is less than the element to be inserted. In both cases the element is inserted at the end.
Algorithm
---------
Sort(list)
if(list.count==1)
return
temp = last element of list
temp_list = list with last element removed
Sort(temp_list)
Insert(temp_list, temp)
Insert(list, temp)
if(list.count ==0 || list[n-1] <= temp)
list.insert(temp)
return
insert_temp = last element of list
insert_temp_list = list with last element removed
Insert(insert_temo_list, insert_temp)
For Insert after base condition its calling recursively till it find the correct position for the last element which is removed.

C# - Creating a recursive function to calculate the sum of a list. Is it possible using only the list as the only parameter?

So in my attempt to start learning c# one challenge I've come across is to create a recursive function that will calculate the sum of a list. I'm wondering if it's possible to do this using a list as the only argument of the function? Or would I need to apply an index size as well to work through the list?
int addRecursively(List<int> numList)
{
int total = numList[0];
if (numList.Count > 1)
{
numList.RemoveAt(0);
return total += addRecursively(numList);
}
Console.WriteLine(total);
return total;
}
List<int> numbers = new<List<int> {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8};
addRecursively(numbers); //returns only the last element of whichever list I enter.
I was hoping by assigning the total to the first index of the list before deleting the first index of the list that when passed into the next instance of the function the index of each element in the list would move down one, allowing me to get each value in the list and totalling them up. However using the function will only ever return the last element of whichever list of integers I enter.
My thought process came from arrays and the idea of the shift method on an array in JS, removing the first element and bringing the whole thing down.
Am I attempting something stupid here? Is there another similar method I should be using or would I be better off simply including a list size as another parameter?
Thanks for your time

So in my attempt to start learning c# one challenge I've come across is to create a recursive function that will calculate the sum of a list. I'm wondering if it's possible to do this using a list as the only argument of the function? Or would I need to apply an index size as well to work through the list?
That's a great exercise for a beginner. However, you would never, ever do this with a List<int> in a realistic program. First, because you'd simply call .Sum() on it. But that's a cop-out; someone had to write Sum, and that person could be you.
The reason you would never do this recursively is List<T> is not a recursive data structure. As you note, every time you recurse there has to be something different. If there is not something different then you have an unbounded recursion!
That means you have to change one of the arguments, either by mutating it, if it is a reference type, or passing a different argument. Neither is correct in this case where the argument is a list.
For a list, you never want to mutate the list, by removing items, say. You don't own that list. The caller owns the list and it is rude to mutate it on them. When I call your method to sum a list, I don't want the list to be emptied; I might want to use it for something else.
And for a list, you never want to pass a different list in a recursion because constructing the new list from the old list is very expensive.
(There is also the issue of deep recursion; presumably we wish to sum lists of more than a thousand numbers, but that will eat up all the stack space if you go with a recursive solution; C# is not a guaranteed-tail-recursive language like F# is. However, for learning purposes let's ignore this issue and assume we are dealing with only small lists.)
Since both of the techniques for avoiding unbounded recursions are inapplicable, you must not write recursive algorithms on List<T> (or, as you note, you must pass an auxiliary parameter such as an index, and that's the thing you change). But your exercise is still valid; we just have to make it a better exercise by asking "what would we have to change to make a list that is amenable to recursion?"
We need to change two things: (1) make the list immutable, and (2) make it a recursively defined data structure. If it is immutable then you cannot change the caller's data by accident; it's unchangeable. And if it is a recursively defined data structure then there is a natural way to do recursion on it that is cheap.
So this is your new exercise:
An ImmutableList is either (1) empty, or (2) a single integer, called the "head", and an immutable list, called the "tail". Implement these in the manner of your choosing. (Abstract base class, interface implemented by multiple classes, single class that does the whole thing, whatever you think is best. Pay particular attention to the constructors.)
ImmutableList has three public read-only properties: bool IsEmpty, int Head and ImmutableList Tail. Implement them.
Now we can define int Sum(ImmutableList) as a recursive method: the base case is the sum of an empty list is zero; the inductive case is the sum of a non-empty list is the head plus the sum of the tail. Implement it; can you do it as a single line of code?
You will learn much more about C# and programming in a functional style with this exercise. Use iterative algorithms on List<T>, always; that is what it was designed for. Use recursion on data structures that are designed for recursion.
Bonus exercises:
Write Sum as an extension method, so that you can call myImmutableList.Sum().
Sum is a special case of an operation called Aggregate. It returns an integer, and takes three parameters: an immutable list, an integer called the accumulator, and a Func<int, int, int>. If the list is empty, the result is the accumulator. Otherwise, the result is the recursion on the tail and calling the function on the head and the accumulator. Write a recursive Aggregate; if you've done it correctly then int Sum(ImmutableList items) => Aggregate(items, 0, (acc, item) => acc + item); should be a correct implementation of Sum.
Genericize ImmutableList to ImmutableList<T>; genericize Aggregate to Aggregate<T, R> where T is the list element type and R is the accumulator type.

Try this way:
int addRecursively(List<int> lst)
{
if(lst.Count() == 0) return 0;
return lst.Take(1).First() + addRecursively(lst.Skip(1).ToList());
}

one more example:
static public int RecursiveSum(List<int> ints)
{
int nextIndex = 0;
if(ints.Count == 0)
return 0;
return ints[0] + RecursiveSum(ints.GetRange(++nextIndex, ints.Count - 1));
}

These are some ways to get the sum of integers in a list.
You don't need a recursive method, it spends more system resources when it isn't needed.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
List<int> numbers = new List<int>() { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
int sum1 = numbers.Sum();
int sum2 = GetSum2(numbers);
int sum3 = GetSum3(numbers);
int sum4 = GetSum4(numbers);
}
private static int GetSum2(List<int> numbers)
{
int total = 0;
foreach (int number in numbers)
{
total += number;
}
return total;
}
private static int GetSum3(List<int> numbers)
{
int total = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < numbers.Count; i++)
{
total += numbers[i];
}
return total;
}
private static int GetSum4(List<int> numbers)
{
int total = 0;
numbers.ForEach((number) =>
{
total += number;
});
return total;
}
}

How to truncate an array in place in C#

I mean is it really possible? MSDN says that arrays are fixed-size and the only way to resize is "copy-to-new-place". But maybe it is possible with unsafe/some magic with internal CLR structures, they all are written in C++ where we have a full memory control and can call realloc and so on.
I have no code provided for this question, because I don't even know if it can exist.
I'm not talking about Array.Resize methods and so on, because they obviosly do not have needed behaviour.
Assume that we have a standard x86 process with 2GB ram, and I have 1.9GB filled by single array. Then I want to release half of it. So I want to write something like:
MagicClass.ResizeArray(ref arr, n)
And do not get OutOfMemoryException. Array.Resize will try to allocate another gigabyte of RAM and will fail with 1.9+1 > 2GB OutOfMemory.

You can try Array.Resize():
int[] myArray = new int[] { 1, 2, 3, 4 };
int myNewSize = 1;
Array.Resize(ref myArray, myNewSize);
// Test: 1
Console.Write(myArray.Length);

realloc will attempt to do the inplace resize - but it reserves the right to copy the whole thing elsewhere and return a pointer that's completely different.
Pretty much the same outward behaviour is exposed by .NET's List<T> class - which you should be using anyway if you find yourself changing array sizes often. It hides the actual array reference from you so that the change is propagated throughout all of the references to the same list. As you remove items from the end, only the length of the list changes while the inner array stays the same - avoiding the copying.
It doesn't release the memory (you can always do that explicitly with Capacity = XXX, but that makes a new copy of the array), but then again, unless you're working with large arrays, neither does realloc - and if you're working with large arrays, yada, yada - we've been there :)
realloc doesn't really make sense in the kind of memory model .NET has anyway - the heap is continously collected and compacted over time. So if you're trying to use it to avoid the copies when just trimming an array, while also keeping memory usage low... don't bother. At the next heap compaction, the whole memory above your array is going to be moved to fill in the blanks. Even if it were possible to do the realloc, the only benefit you have over simply copying the array is that you would keep your array in the old-living heap - and that isn't necessarily what you want anyway.

Neither array type in BCL supports what you want. That being said - you can implement your own type that would support what you need. It can be backed by standard array, but would implement own Length and indexer properties, that would 'hide' portion of array from you.
public class MyTruncatableArray<T>
{
private T[] _array;
private int _length;
public MyTruncatableArray(int size)
{
_array = new T[size];
_length = size;
}
public T this[int index]
{
get
{
CheckIndex(index, _length);
return _array[index];
}
set
{
CheckIndex(index, _length);
_array[index] = value;
}
}
public int Length
{
get { return _length; }
set
{
CheckIndex(value);
_length = value;
}
}
private void CheckIndex(int index)
{
this.CheckIndex(index, _array.Length);
}
private void CheckIndex(int index, int maxValue)
{
if (index < 0 || index > maxValue)
{
throw new ArgumentException("New array length must be positive and lower or equal to original size");
}
}
}
It really depend what exactly do need. (E.g. do you need to truncate just so that you can easier use it from your code. Or is perf/GC/memory consumption a concern? If the latter is the case - did you perform any measurements that proves standard Array.Resize method unusable for your case?)

Find sequence in IEnumerable<T> using Linq

What is the most efficient way to find a sequence within a IEnumerable<T> using LINQ
I want to be able to create an extension method which allows the following call:
int startIndex = largeSequence.FindSequence(subSequence)
The match must be adjacent and in order.

Here's an implementation of an algorithm that finds a subsequence in a sequence. I called the method IndexOfSequence, because it makes the intent more explicit and is similar to the existing IndexOf method:
public static class ExtensionMethods
{
public static int IndexOfSequence<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, IEnumerable<T> sequence)
{
return source.IndexOfSequence(sequence, EqualityComparer<T>.Default);
}
public static int IndexOfSequence<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, IEnumerable<T> sequence, IEqualityComparer<T> comparer)
{
var seq = sequence.ToArray();
int p = 0; // current position in source sequence
int i = 0; // current position in searched sequence
var prospects = new List<int>(); // list of prospective matches
foreach (var item in source)
{
// Remove bad prospective matches
prospects.RemoveAll(k => !comparer.Equals(item, seq[p - k]));
// Is it the start of a prospective match ?
if (comparer.Equals(item, seq[0]))
{
prospects.Add(p);
}
// Does current character continues partial match ?
if (comparer.Equals(item, seq[i]))
{
i++;
// Do we have a complete match ?
if (i == seq.Length)
{
// Bingo !
return p - seq.Length + 1;
}
}
else // Mismatch
{
// Do we have prospective matches to fall back to ?
if (prospects.Count > 0)
{
// Yes, use the first one
int k = prospects[0];
i = p - k + 1;
}
else
{
// No, start from beginning of searched sequence
i = 0;
}
}
p++;
}
// No match
return -1;
}
}
I didn't fully test it, so it might still contain bugs. I just did a few tests on well-known corner cases to make sure I wasn't falling into obvious traps. Seems to work fine so far...
I think the complexity is close to O(n), but I'm not an expert of Big O notation so I could be wrong... at least it only enumerates the source sequence once, whithout ever going back, so it should be reasonably efficient.

The code you say you want to be able to use isn't LINQ, so I don't see why it need be implemented with LINQ.
This is essentially the same problem as substring searching (indeed, an enumeration where order is significant is a generalisation of "string").
Since computer science has considered this problem frequently for a long time, so you get to stand on the shoulders of giants.
Some reasonable starting points are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuth%E2%80%93Morris%E2%80%93Pratt_algorithm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyer%E2%80%93Moore_string_search_algorithm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabin-karp
Even just the pseudocode in the wikipedia articles is enough to port to C# quite easily. Look at the descriptions of performance in different cases and decide which cases are most likely to be encountered by your code.

I understand this is an old question, but I needed this exact method and I wrote it up like so:
public static int ContainsSubsequence<T>(this IEnumerable<T> elements, IEnumerable<T> subSequence) where T: IEquatable<T>
{
return ContainsSubsequence(elements, 0, subSequence);
}
private static int ContainsSubsequence<T>(IEnumerable<T> elements, int index, IEnumerable<T> subSequence) where T: IEquatable<T>
{
// Do we have any elements left?
bool elementsLeft = elements.Any();
// Do we have any of the sub-sequence left?
bool sequenceLeft = subSequence.Any();
// No elements but sub-sequence not fully matched
if (!elementsLeft && sequenceLeft)
return -1; // Nope, didn't match
// No elements of sub-sequence, which means even if there are
// more elements, we matched the sub-sequence fully
if (!sequenceLeft)
return index - subSequence.Count(); // Matched!
// If we didn't reach a terminal condition,
// check the first element of the sub-sequence against the first element
if (subSequence.First().Equals(e.First()))
// Yes, it matched - move onto the next. Consume (skip) one element in each
return ContainsSubsequence(elements.Skip(1), index + 1 subSequence.Skip(1));
else
// No, it didn't match. Try the next element, without consuming an element
// from the sub-sequence
return ContainsSubsequence(elements.Skip(1), index + 1, subSequence);
}
Updated to not just return if the sub-sequence matched, but where it started in the original sequence.
This is an extension method on IEnumerable, fully lazy, terminates early and is far more linq-ified than the currently up-voted answer. Bewarned, however (as #wai-ha-lee points out) it is recursive and creates a lot of enumerators. Use it where applicable (performance/memory). This was fine for my needs, but YMMV.

You can use this library called Sequences to do that (disclaimer: I'm the author).
It has a IndexOfSlice method that does exactly what you need - it's an implementation of the Knuth-Morris-Pratt algorithm.
int startIndex = largeSequence.AsSequence().IndexOfSlice(subSequence);

UPDATE:
Given the clarification of the question my response below isn't as applicable. Leaving it for historical purposes.
You probably want to use mySequence.Where(). Then the key is to optimize the predicate to work well in your environment. This can vary quite a bit depending on your requirements and typical usage patterns.
It is quite possible that what works well for small collections doesn't scale well for much larger collections depending on what type T is.
Of course, if the 90% use is for small collections then optimizing for the outlier large collection seems a bit YAGNI.

How to initialize a List<T> to a given size (as opposed to capacity)?

.NET offers a generic list container whose performance is almost identical (see Performance of Arrays vs. Lists question). However they are quite different in initialization.
Arrays are very easy to initialize with a default value, and by definition they already have certain size:
string[] Ar = new string[10];
Which allows one to safely assign random items, say:
Ar[5]="hello";
with list things are more tricky. I can see two ways of doing the same initialization, neither of which is what you would call elegant:
List<string> L = new List<string>(10);
for (int i=0;i<10;i++) L.Add(null);
or
string[] Ar = new string[10];
List<string> L = new List<string>(Ar);
What would be a cleaner way?
EDIT: The answers so far refer to capacity, which is something else than pre-populating a list. For example, on a list just created with a capacity of 10, one cannot do L[2]="somevalue"
EDIT 2: People wonder why I want to use lists this way, as it is not the way they are intended to be used. I can see two reasons:
One could quite convincingly argue that lists are the "next generation" arrays, adding flexibility with almost no penalty. Therefore one should use them by default. I'm pointing out they might not be as easy to initialize.
What I'm currently writing is a base class offering default functionality as part of a bigger framework. In the default functionality I offer, the size of the List is known in advanced and therefore I could have used an array. However, I want to offer any base class the chance to dynamically extend it and therefore I opt for a list.

List<string> L = new List<string> ( new string[10] );

I can't say I need this very often - could you give more details as to why you want this? I'd probably put it as a static method in a helper class:
public static class Lists
{
public static List<T> RepeatedDefault<T>(int count)
{
return Repeated(default(T), count);
}
public static List<T> Repeated<T>(T value, int count)
{
List<T> ret = new List<T>(count);
ret.AddRange(Enumerable.Repeat(value, count));
return ret;
}
}
You could use Enumerable.Repeat(default(T), count).ToList() but that would be inefficient due to buffer resizing.
Note that if T is a reference type, it will store count copies of the reference passed for the value parameter - so they will all refer to the same object. That may or may not be what you want, depending on your use case.
EDIT: As noted in comments, you could make Repeated use a loop to populate the list if you wanted to. That would be slightly faster too. Personally I find the code using Repeat more descriptive, and suspect that in the real world the performance difference would be irrelevant, but your mileage may vary.

Use the constructor which takes an int ("capacity") as an argument:
List<string> = new List<string>(10);
EDIT: I should add that I agree with Frederik. You are using the List in a way that goes against the entire reasoning behind using it in the first place.
EDIT2:
EDIT 2: What I'm currently writing is a base class offering default functionality as part of a bigger framework. In the default functionality I offer, the size of the List is known in advanced and therefore I could have used an array. However, I want to offer any base class the chance to dynamically extend it and therefore I opt for a list.
Why would anyone need to know the size of a List with all null values? If there are no real values in the list, I would expect the length to be 0. Anyhow, the fact that this is cludgy demonstrates that it is going against the intended use of the class.

Create an array with the number of items you want first and then convert the array in to a List.
int[] fakeArray = new int[10];
List<int> list = fakeArray.ToList();

If you want to initialize the list with N elements of some fixed value:
public List<T> InitList<T>(int count, T initValue)
{
return Enumerable.Repeat(initValue, count).ToList();
}

Why are you using a List if you want to initialize it with a fixed value ?
I can understand that -for the sake of performance- you want to give it an initial capacity, but isn't one of the advantages of a list over a regular array that it can grow when needed ?
When you do this:
List<int> = new List<int>(100);
You create a list whose capacity is 100 integers. This means that your List won't need to 'grow' until you add the 101th item.
The underlying array of the list will be initialized with a length of 100.

This is an old question, but I have two solutions. One is fast and dirty reflection; the other is a solution that actually answers the question (set the size not the capacity) while still being performant, which none of the answers here do.
Reflection
This is quick and dirty, and should be pretty obvious what the code does. If you want to speed it up, cache the result of GetField, or create a DynamicMethod to do it:
public static void SetSize<T>(this List<T> l, int newSize) =>
l.GetType().GetField("_size", BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance).SetValue(l, newSize);
Obviously a lot of people will be hesitant to put such code into production.
ICollection<T>
This solution is based around the fact that the constructor List(IEnumerable<T> collection) optimizes for ICollection<T> and immediately adjusts the size to the correct amount, without iterating it. It then calls the collections CopyTo to do the copy.
The code for the List<T> constructor is as follows:
public List(IEnumerable<T> collection) {
....
ICollection<T> c = collection as ICollection<T>;
if (collection is ICollection<T> c)
{
int count = c.Count;
if (count == 0)
{
_items = s_emptyArray;
}
else {
_items = new T[count];
c.CopyTo(_items, 0);
_size = count;
}
}
So we can completely optimally pre-initialize the List to the correct size, without any extra copying.
How so? By creating an ICollection<T> object that does nothing other than return a Count. Specifically, we will not implement anything in CopyTo which is the only other function called.
private struct SizeCollection<T> : ICollection<T>
{
public SizeCollection(int size) =>
Count = size;
public void Add(T i){}
public void Clear(){}
public bool Contains(T i)=>true;
public void CopyTo(T[]a, int i){}
public bool Remove(T i)=>true;
public int Count {get;}
public bool IsReadOnly=>true;
public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator()=>null;
IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()=>null;
}
public List<T> InitializedList<T>(int size) =>
new List<T>(new SizeCollection<T>(size));
We could in theory do the same thing for AddRange/InsertRange for an existing array, which also accounts for ICollection<T>, but the code there creates a new array for the supposed items, then copies them in. In such case, it would be faster to just empty-loop Add:
public void SetSize<T>(this List<T> l, int size)
{
if(size < l.Count)
l.RemoveRange(size, l.Count - size);
else
for(size -= l.Count; size > 0; size--)
l.Add(default(T));
}

Initializing the contents of a list like that isn't really what lists are for. Lists are designed to hold objects. If you want to map particular numbers to particular objects, consider using a key-value pair structure like a hash table or dictionary instead of a list.

You seem to be emphasizing the need for a positional association with your data, so wouldn't an associative array be more fitting?
Dictionary<int, string> foo = new Dictionary<int, string>();
foo[2] = "string";

The accepted answer (the one with the green check mark) has an issue.
The problem:
var result = Lists.Repeated(new MyType(), sizeOfList);
// each item in the list references the same MyType() object
// if you edit item 1 in the list, you are also editing item 2 in the list
I recommend changing the line above to perform a copy of the object. There are many different articles about that:
String.MemberwiseClone() method called through reflection doesn't work, why?
https://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowsdesktop/CSDeepCloneObject-8a53311e
If you want to initialize every item in your list with the default constructor, rather than NULL, then add the following method:
public static List<T> RepeatedDefaultInstance<T>(int count)
{
List<T> ret = new List<T>(count);
for (var i = 0; i < count; i++)
{
ret.Add((T)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(T)));
}
return ret;
}

You can use Linq to cleverly initialize your list with a default value. (Similar to David B's answer.)
var defaultStrings = (new int[10]).Select(x => "my value").ToList();
Go one step farther and initialize each string with distinct values "string 1", "string 2", "string 3", etc:
int x = 1;
var numberedStrings = (new int[10]).Select(x => "string " + x++).ToList();

string [] temp = new string[] {"1","2","3"};
List<string> temp2 = temp.ToList();

After thinking again, I had found the non-reflection answer to the OP question, but Charlieface beat me to it. So I believe that the correct and complete answer is https://stackoverflow.com/a/65766955/4572240
My old answer:
If I understand correctly, you want the List<T> version of new T[size], without the overhead of adding values to it.
If you are not afraid the implementation of List<T> will change dramatically in the future (and in this case I believe the probability is close to 0), you can use reflection:
public static List<T> NewOfSize<T>(int size) {
var list = new List<T>(size);
var sizeField = list.GetType().GetField("_size",BindingFlags.Instance|BindingFlags.NonPublic);
sizeField.SetValue(list, size);
return list;
}
Note that this takes into account the default functionality of the underlying array to prefill with the default value of the item type. All int arrays will have values of 0 and all reference type arrays will have values of null. Also note that for a list of reference types, only the space for the pointer to each item is created.
If you, for some reason, decide on not using reflection, I would have liked to offer an option of AddRange with a generator method, but underneath List<T> just calls Insert a zillion times, which doesn't serve.
I would also like to point out that the Array class has a static method called ResizeArray, if you want to go the other way around and start from Array.
To end, I really hate when I ask a question and everybody points out that it's the wrong question. Maybe it is, and thanks for the info, but I would still like an answer, because you have no idea why I am asking it. That being said, if you want to create a framework that has an optimal use of resources, List<T> is a pretty inefficient class for anything than holding and adding stuff to the end of a collection.

A notice about IList:
MSDN IList Remarks:
"IList implementations fall into three categories: read-only, fixed-size, and variable-size. (...). For the generic version of this interface, see
System.Collections.Generic.IList<T>."
IList<T> does NOT inherits from IList (but List<T> does implement both IList<T> and IList), but is always variable-size.
Since .NET 4.5, we have also IReadOnlyList<T> but AFAIK, there is no fixed-size generic List which would be what you are looking for.

This is a sample I used for my unit test. I created a list of class object. Then I used forloop to add 'X' number of objects that I am expecting from the service.
This way you can add/initialize a List for any given size.
public void TestMethod1()
{
var expected = new List<DotaViewer.Interface.DotaHero>();
for (int i = 0; i < 22; i++)//You add empty initialization here
{
var temp = new DotaViewer.Interface.DotaHero();
expected.Add(temp);
}
var nw = new DotaHeroCsvService();
var items = nw.GetHero();
CollectionAssert.AreEqual(expected,items);
}
Hope I was of help to you guys.

A bit late but first solution you proposed seems far cleaner to me : you dont allocate memory twice.
Even List constrcutor needs to loop through array in order to copy it; it doesn't even know by advance there is only null elements inside.
1.
- allocate N
- loop N
Cost: 1 * allocate(N) + N * loop_iteration
2.
- allocate N
- allocate N + loop ()
Cost : 2 * allocate(N) + N * loop_iteration
However List's allocation an loops might be faster since List is a built-in class, but C# is jit-compiled sooo...