var

Marc Clifton

So, there's been a lot of posts about whether var (C# thingy, for those non-C# folks) is good, bad, or just ugly. Well, I can deal with: var foo = new List(); as an example, because it's obvious what foo is. What I really hate is something like this: var foo = factory.CreateAFoo() That's where I despise seeing a "var"! Marc

Will work for food. Interacx

I'm not overthinking the problem, I just felt like I needed a small, unimportant, uninteresting rant! - Martin Hart Turner

Nemanja Trifunovic

Marc Clifton wrote:

var foo = factory.CreateAFoo()

Meh, in your example foo is either Foo or IFoo. On a slightly related note: why on earth C# (or Java) need keyword new in the first place? It is completely redundant.

Programming Blog utf8-cpp

Judah Gabriel Himango

My opinion: I'm kind of liking var. Everywhere. While I might not be able to tell the type at only a quick glance, as you say in your post, it makes the code much cleaner and elegant, IMO, as the variable declarations all stand out as a single group.

Religiously blogging on the intarwebs since the early 21st century: Kineti L'Tziyon Judah Himango

Marc Clifton

Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:

Meh, in your example foo is either Foo or IFoo.

Agreed. The example was bad, but you know what I meant. :)

Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:

why on earth C# (or Java) need keyword new in the first place? It is completely redundant.

Because it gives everyone a warm fuzzy feeling that something important is happening. Just be glad we don't have to use the "Let" keyword (though, in some functional languages, it's baaaaack!) Marc

Will work for food. Interacx

I'm not overthinking the problem, I just felt like I needed a small, unimportant, uninteresting rant! - Martin Hart Turner

Ian Shlasko

Agreed... Only two places I'll use var... 1) In initializations like you described, when the type is right there anyway 2) Linq anonymous types

Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)

TheGreatAndPowerfulOz

you have a point. I've taken to only using var where the type is obvious.

Chris Losinger

Marc Clifton wrote:

var foo = factory.CreateAFoo()

into every language a little void * must fall.

image processing toolkits | batch image processing

CPallini

Because Bill (Jim's mate) keep calling instances capitalized... :rolleyes:

If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong. -- Iain Clarke
[My articles]

Michael Dunn

It still bugs me that you can't write "new List" in C#, you have to write "new List()" But maybe I'm just a crusty old C++ guy. ;P

--Mike-- Dunder-Mifflin, this is Pam

Brady Kelly

The other day, I was staring at the screen nodding off, and I typed "var ls = List", and it looked so right. I ascended and send a messenger down to the C# 5 team. Just wait and see. :)

I have been trying for weeks to get this little site indexed. If you wonder what it is, or would like some informal accommodation for the 2010 World Cup, please click on this link for Rhino Cottages.

PIEBALDconsult

Only use it where it's needed.

Marc Clifton wrote:

it's obvious what foo is

Then don't use var.

Marc Clifton wrote:

That's where I despise seeing a "var"!

And yet it makes a little more sense there.

wout de zeeuw

Marc Clifton wrote:

var foo = new List();

This is actually more typing than

List foo = new List();

so there it would be kinda useless too.

Wout

Robert Surtees

Just make all undeclared variables vars and do away with the keyword altogether. ;)

Shog9 0

Marc Clifton wrote:

var foo = factory.CreateAFoo() That's where I despise seeing a "var"!

That's where I despise seeing factories... ;) Think about it: new List() obviously creates an instance of List, hence the utility of var. You'd expect CreateAFoo() to create an instance of something named Foo, thereby preserving the utility of var - since the author instead chose to return a list without indicating this anywhere in the method name, you're trapped, trapped like a rat, between the choice to write code that is verbose and code that is unclear. The problem hardly begins with var either; your code becomes similarly opaque if you pass the result of the Create... call directly as a parameter to another method.

Luc Pattyn

or use some other language, such as PHP. More freedom, more joy. :laugh:

Luc Pattyn

Have a look at my entry for the lean-and-mean competition; please provide comments, feedback, discussion, and don’t forget to vote for it! Thank you.

Local announcement (Antwerp region): Lange Wapper? Neen!

Stuart Dootson

Does the 'crusty old' relate to you or C++? ;P Use parentheses to disambiguate, young man - either (crusty old) (C++ guy) or (((crusty old) C++) guy)!

Java, Basic, who cares - it's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy cr*p

Christian Graus

Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:

On a slightly related note: why on earth C# (or Java) need keyword new in the first place? It is completely redundant.

So objects can be null. So you can control where an object is declared ( as in, if they are a member, etc ), and also control when you pay the cost of creating them.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.

Adam Maras

What if CreateAFoo() returns something ridiculous like IEnumerable<Dictionary<int, Dictionary<int, List<int>>>>?

Adam Maras | Software Developer Microsoft Certified Professional Developer

Ian Shlasko

I kind of like the "new" keyword, but technically it shouldn't be needed, unless I'm missing something. Just playing devil's advocate here...

With: List<string> myList = new List<string>();
Without: List<string> myList = List<string>();

The parentheses would be enough to indicate that you're calling a constructor... I do think, though, that the "new" keyword keeps things clearer. There could be issues with functions named the same as classes, but that could technically be resolved with absolute references.

Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)

Pete OHanlon

Marc Clifton wrote:

var foo = factory.CreateAFoo() That's where I despise seeing a "var"!

So what you have here is var foo = factory.CreateAPoo();

"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith

As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.

My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx