Develop Reference

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;
}
}

Get the last 10 objects in arraylist

I'm trying to obtain the last 10 objects within an arraylist.
Case: Arraylist full of objects[ChartObjectsInt] and [ChartObjectsReal] with indexes from 0-N, i want to obtain the last 10 persons (N-10), and with these last 10 objects I want to call functions from that object; like ChartObjectsInt.getLabelName();
Can anyone help?
Code I've reached so far:
private void getLastTenObjects()
{
foreach (ChartObjectsInt chartRecords in arraylistMonitor)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
arraylistMonitor.IndexOf(i);
}
}
}

Why don't you use List rather than ArrayList, if you do so it will be more easy to get last 10 element from list.
example:
var lastTenProducts = products.OrderByDescending(p => p.ProductDate).Take(10);
//here products is the List

If you don't want to use LINQ at all
for (var i = Math.Max(arraylistMonitor.Count - 10, 0); i < arraylistMonitor.Count; i++)
{
YourFunctionCallHere(arraylistMonitor[i]);
}
The above code will loop through the last 10 items of the ArrayList by setting i to the appropriate starting index - the Math.Max call there is in case the ArrayList has 9 or fewer elements in it.
If you are willing to use LINQ
var last10 = arraylistMonitor.Cast<object>().Reverse().Take(10);
will do what you want. You may also wish to add ToList after Take(10), depending on how you wish to consume last10.
Firstly it casts it to an IEnumerable<object> then goes through the IEnumerable backwards until it has (up to) 10 items.
If you specifically want last10 to be an ArrayList (which I wouldn't recommend) then use:
var last10 = new ArrayList(arraylistMonitor.Cast<object>().Reverse().Take(10).ToList());

As others have already said, I would use List<T> as ArrayList is effectively deprecated for that as it exists from a time when C# didn't have generics.
With that said, you could write a function that would work for a list of any size and take however many like so
public List<T> GetLastX<T>(List<T> list, int amountToTake)
{
return list.Skip(list.Count - amountToTake).ToList();
}

Store string data using an array (C#)

A task that I can't seem to solve, even after hours and hours of trying.
Basically, I have a phonebook that takes input from the user: name and number (both string type), which becomes a Contact.
I'm supposed to store the Contact in an Array, and the user shall both be able to add and also delete data (Contact) from the array, via the methods Create and Delete.
I made an own Repository class to handle the data (Contact also has an own little class), but I used List to store the data, so I could simply use Add and Remove, so my code looks like this:
public class Repository
{
List<Contact> storagelist;
public Repository() {
storagelist = new List<Contact>();
}
public void Create(Contact item) //Adds the item to the list
{
storagelist.Add(item);
}
public bool Delete(Contact item) //Removes the item
{
if (!storagelist.Contains(item))
return false;
storagelist.Remove(item);
return true;
}
}
What I am looking for, is how do exactly this, have these 2 features of adding and removing a Contact, but store the data in an Array instead.
Since arrays (to my knowledge) has to have a fixed, pre-defined size I have no idea how it could be used in exactly the same way as the List. The array size shall always be the same as the amount of Contacts that are stored, but how can this be done when an array's size is fixed??
So, how to create an array, that always has the same size as the amount of Contacts that are stored, and how to Add and Remove to/from this array?
Help is very much appreciated!
EDIT: Thanks for all responses! Every answer was helpful in the process (Omar and person66 in particular!).
I solved the Removal by "moving" the entire array after the delete-element, to 1 index lower, and finally resizing the array to be smaller. Like so:
int deleteIndex = Array.IndexOf(storagelist, item);
for (int index = deleteIndex + 1; index < storagelist.Length; index++)
{
storagelist[index - 1] = storagelist[index];
}
Array.Resize(ref storagelist, storagelist.Length - 1);

You are right in that array sizes are fixed. You can, however, use Array.Resize() to create a new array of the specified size with all the current array data. So for adding you would resize to 1 larger and add the new contact at the end. For removing you will have to use a loop to shift all the elements in the array past the one being removed back one spot, then resize it to be 1 smaller.
EDIT: A simpler option for removing would be to use Array.Copy():
Array.Copy(a, deleteIndex + 1, a, deleteIndex, a.Length - (deleteIndex + 1));
Array.Resize(ref a, a.Length - 1);
A list is a much better solution to this problem, I don't know why you would ever want to use an array for this.

A List just ends up using an array for it's storage anyway. The way a list works is it is initializes an array with a certain amount of storage then if it's capacity is exceeded it recreates an array with a larger size and copies the elements back. You could try this approach, except you'd just be recreating what a list does.
The other option is just declare an arbitrarily large array of 100,000 elements or so. A number which you know will not be exceeded.
For size you can write your own function which keeps track of the number of contacts in the array.

You can use a generic list. Under the hood the List class uses an array for storage but does so in a fashion that allows it to grow effeciently.
Take a look at this link for more details, it can be helpfull.

var contacts = new[]
{
new { Name = "Foo", Phone = "9999999999" },
new { Name = "Bar", Phone = "0000000000" }
};
You can create an array of anonymous object and then use linq to delete objects from array.
You can create a new object and insert into anonymous object variable.

IList<T> version of String.IndexOf (finds a sub-'string', not just a single object)

I'm looking for an implementation of List<T>.IndexOf(List<T>). I've only found List<<T>.IndexOf(T) in the .NET class library.
I have a List longList and a List possibleSubList. I'd like to know if possibleSubList can be found as a sub-'string' within longList, and if so, the index into longList.
This is basically the same semantics as System.String.IndexOf. Anyone know what to call this or if there's a good implementation of it?
Pseudocode Examples:
{1, 2, 3, 9, 8, 7}.IndexOf({3, 9, 8}) = 2
{1, 2, 3, 9, 8, 7}.IndexOf({1, 2, 3, 9, 8, 7}) = 0
{1, 2, 3, 9, 8, 7}.IndexOf({2, 9}) = -1 (not found)
Clarification: I already have a straightforward implementation of this (two nested for loops), but my lists are rather long, and this is in a performance sensitive area. I'm hoping to find a more efficient implementation than my ~O(m*n).

Linear Z-Indexing is probably one of the fastest sublist searching algorithm out there today where the pattern is the same and corpus is dynamic, with a true O(n) complexity (with small alphabets, it performs exceptionally better than you might expect from O(n) as ZIndexing provides plenty of opportunities to skip indexes):
I wrote my implementation in a genetics algorithms class under the guidance of Shaojie Zhang from the University of Central Florida. I've adapted the algorithms to C#, and specifically to use generic IList<T>, if you decide to use it, please give credit. The research for these techniques are available here, and specifically, look at the lecture notes here.
At any rate, I've made the code available here
Look inside of TestZIndexing.cs for examples of how to perform searches (in this case on character sequences, but using generics you should be able to use anything with an equality operator).
The usage is simple:
IEnumerable<int> LinearZIndexer.FindZ<T>(
IList<T> patternSequence, IList<T> sourceSequence, bool bMatchFirstOnly)
where T: IComparable;
And, as some DNA is circular, I have a circular variant:
IEnumerable<int> LinearZIndexer.FindZCircular<T>(
IList<T> patternSequence, IList<T> sourceSequence, bool bMatchFirstOnly)
where T: IComparable;
Let's do it even faster: Suffix Trees
Alternatively, if you want to get even better performance than O(n), you can get O(m), where m is the size of the pattern list, by using a Suffix Tree. This works when the pattern changes and the corpus stays the same (the opposite of the previous case). Look inside the same library I contributed for TestSuffixTree.cs. The only difference here is that you must build the Suffix Tree ahead of time, so it is definitely for multiple pattern searches against a large corpus, but I provide an O(n) and Space(n) algorithm for building that suffix tree.
The calls are equally simple, and again, can use anything that provides an IComparable:
string strTest = "bananabananaorangebananaorangebananabananabananaban";
string[] strFind = {"banana", "orange", "ban"};
// I use char, but you can use any class or primitive that
// supports IComparable
var tree = new SuffixTree<char>();
tree.BuildTree(strTest.ToCharArray());
var results = tree.Find(str.ToCharArray());
foreach(var r in results) Console.WriteLine(r);
Enjoy.

Use the string search algorithm: (psuedo code)
findsubstring(list<T> s, list<T> m){
for(int i=0; i<s.length;++i)
for(int j=0; j<m.length;++j)
if(s[i] != s[j])
break;
if(j==m.length-1)
return i;
return -1;
}

I think your use of the word 'sub-string' was a little misleading. I believe you are trying to see whether a larger list contains a sub-sequence of elements that matches the entire sequence of elements from another list. This is an extension method that should do what you want it to do, if I understand what you want correctly:
public static int IndexOfSequence<T>(this IEnumerable<T> longL, IEnumerable<T> subL)
{
var longList = longL.ToList();
var subList = subL.ToList();
int longCount = longList.Count;
int subCount = subList.Count;
if (subCount > longCount)
{
return -1;
}
int numTries = longCount - subCount + 1;
for (int i = 0; i < numTries; i++)
{
var newList = new List<T>(longList.Skip(i).Take(subCount));
if (newList.SequenceEqual(subList))
{
return i;
}
}
return -1;
}
Then you can use it like:
int index = longList.IndexOfSequence(possibleSubList);

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...