>>Interfaces aren't used enough by most .NET devs. I'm working with junior devs on my team to help them learn how to use them. There's a really good Pluralsight course by Jeremy Clark that I highly recommend.
>>
>>
>>>Dmitry/(and Viv)
>>>
>>>Before Generics came around, there were scenarios where reflection really helped. But the combination of generics and interfaces often reduces the # of instances where it's necessary. Using generics can mean giving a serious second look at a design, and it's usually worth it.
>
>To the degree they're not used enough, it's (partly) because the developer isn't spotting the pattern where interfaces are necessary. And even when the developer does, it's a matter of knowing how interfaces can help.
>
>It's the old "chicken and egg" issue: it's hard for developers to really "get" patterns and anti-patterns until they've written some code and have seen inefficiencies. But on the other hand (you can see where I'm going with this)
>
>I didn't initially spot the need until I got into .NET remoting and until I tried to write my own data framework. Then it became obvious. Kevin McNeish's book on moving from VFP to .NET covers the fundamentals very well.
>
>Another good way to show someone the value of interfaces is to show how someone would do a distributed app with WCF, and then without WCF. Even with the challenges of WCF, it's still a good way to introduce interfaces.

I only think of generics when I go to CVS.
Now I'm guilt-ridden, having delivered hundreds of thousands of lines of .NET code without a single interface or generic.
What have I been missing?