String or string?
-
There is a tiny difference, remember? Classes are reference types while the aliases are made to appear like value types for convenience.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a fucking golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?" "You mean like from space?" "No, from Canada." If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns. -
Could it be that you are confusing this with Java? .Net never had primitive types. One of the most important differences when the Java guys still dismissed c# as a bad copy of Java.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a fucking golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?" "You mean like from space?" "No, from Canada." If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns. -
Cornelius Henning wrote:
I believe at some point in the past this was the case??
Nope, never. It's just an alias.
string
Visual Studio .NET 2003
The string type represents a string of Unicode characters. string is an alias for System.String in the .NET Framework. -
Are you sure you're not thinking of Java? :confused: With .NET, there's no difference in behaviour between using the class name or the alias.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Value types fundamentally act differently in MSIL as well so it's not just a cheat. `int` is a real value type, it's even (along with most built-in types) extra special in the sense that it's built into MSIL directly. `Int32` is not a reference type either. String is a reference type, but so is string, it's just not very noticeable since it's mostly immutable.
Now it gets confusing. The MSDN does not mention any of this at first glance for the String class. They use string in their samples when they want to use it as a value type and describe how initializing a string with a literal leads to the generation of code that uses one of String's constructors in MISL.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a fucking golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?" "You mean like from space?" "No, from Canada." If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns. -
Now it gets confusing. The MSDN does not mention any of this at first glance for the String class. They use string in their samples when they want to use it as a value type and describe how initializing a string with a literal leads to the generation of code that uses one of String's constructors in MISL.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a fucking golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?" "You mean like from space?" "No, from Canada." If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.Well it's built-in, so it's always going to be a bit odd. Still, you can tell it's not a value type by [cheating](http://ideone.com/v9xjcG), if it was actually a value type it should be impossible to change the original, but as this experiment shows it is only made "impossible" by the immutability.
-
You mean like [this](http://ideone.com/zmqvAx) ?
I must admit that i have never tried to do that. Classes are reference types, (many) aliases are treated like value types. Always worked for me. Long ago I read a book when taking a look at .Net 1.0 and never had a need to question this.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a fucking golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?" "You mean like from space?" "No, from Canada." If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns. -
When writing my C# code I was in the habit of using string (all lowercase) for strings declarations, etc. and String (capitalized) for method calls such as String.Empty and String.Format just as a sort of aide memoir that I was calling an object method. As I started to create String extension methods I reviewed this habit of mine and decided this was a pointless differentiation and switched to just using string all the time. At the same time I decided that my using Int32 for methods such as Int32.TryParse and just int in declarations, etc. was also pointless and perhaps confusing to others and so switched to using int all the time instead. It all compiles to the same IL code anyway so it was just a matter of style really. What do you think?
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
-
Quote:
Could it be that you are confusing this with Java?
No. I never studied Java. I probably was just confusing it with.....:confused:
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
.Net really never had primitive types, but down below I just heard that the line between the classes and the aliases as value types is not drawn as clearly as I believed.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a fucking golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?" "You mean like from space?" "No, from Canada." If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns. -
I've always used the lowercase string when declaring a type, but I use the uppercase String when calling static methods. For example:
string myString = "Hello World!";
string anotherString = String.Format("{0}", "Hola!");Microsoft seems to do the same thing, as seen in some of their examples, like here.
If the usage is correct, that make me think why the VS Intellisense still display "name can be simplified", "Show potential fixes", IDE0001 C# Name can be simplified. Isn't that "Show potential fixes" = there is a bug and here is the potential fix? After all VS is Microsoft product right? ;P ;P
Bryian Tan
-
That explains it. Then I'm right what String and string are concerned, but wrong about Int32 and int.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a fucking golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?" "You mean like from space?" "No, from Canada." If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns. -
Well it's built-in, so it's always going to be a bit odd. Still, you can tell it's not a value type by [cheating](http://ideone.com/v9xjcG), if it was actually a value type it should be impossible to change the original, but as this experiment shows it is only made "impossible" by the immutability.
I have just gotten the answer to this little riddle. Int32 is a struct, not a class, while String really is a class and string is just treated as a value type.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a fucking golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?" "You mean like from space?" "No, from Canada." If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns. -
When writing my C# code I was in the habit of using string (all lowercase) for strings declarations, etc. and String (capitalized) for method calls such as String.Empty and String.Format just as a sort of aide memoir that I was calling an object method. As I started to create String extension methods I reviewed this habit of mine and decided this was a pointless differentiation and switched to just using string all the time. At the same time I decided that my using Int32 for methods such as Int32.TryParse and just int in declarations, etc. was also pointless and perhaps confusing to others and so switched to using int all the time instead. It all compiles to the same IL code anyway so it was just a matter of style really. What do you think?
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
Forogar wrote:
It all compiles to the same IL code anyway so it was just a matter of style really.
That's all that needs to be said, right?
Forogar wrote:
What do you think?
I think it's getting late on Friday afternoon and I'm already past the point where I can afford to waste the brain cells I'd need for something like this...
-
I have just gotten the answer to this little riddle. Int32 is a struct, not a class, while String really is a class and string is just treated as a value type.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a fucking golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?" "You mean like from space?" "No, from Canada." If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.It's not even that it's being treated like a value type. The reason it can accept literals like that is because of an implicit conversion operator.
public class ImplicitString
{
public string Value { get; private set; }
public ImplicitString(string x)
{
Value = x;
}public static implicit operator ImplicitString(string x) { return new ImplicitString(x); }}
//Use
ImplicitString s = "Hello."; -
When writing my C# code I was in the habit of using string (all lowercase) for strings declarations, etc. and String (capitalized) for method calls such as String.Empty and String.Format just as a sort of aide memoir that I was calling an object method. As I started to create String extension methods I reviewed this habit of mine and decided this was a pointless differentiation and switched to just using string all the time. At the same time I decided that my using Int32 for methods such as Int32.TryParse and just int in declarations, etc. was also pointless and perhaps confusing to others and so switched to using int all the time instead. It all compiles to the same IL code anyway so it was just a matter of style really. What do you think?
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
Even though we use the String, Int32, etc... correctly per Microsoft website, in VS, Intellisense will display suggestion "name can be simplified", "Show potential fixes", IDE0001 C# Name can be simplified. Isn't that "Show potential fixes" = there is a bug and here is the potential fix? Why Microsoft didn't fix it to clear this confusion? After all VS is Microsoft product right? Maybe there is a reason behind it, and we all going to like it ;P ;P ;P
Bryian Tan
-
I must admit that i have never tried to do that. Classes are reference types, (many) aliases are treated like value types. Always worked for me. Long ago I read a book when taking a look at .Net 1.0 and never had a need to question this.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a fucking golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?" "You mean like from space?" "No, from Canada." If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.CDP1802 wrote:
Classes are reference types, (many) aliases are treated like value types.
Nope. There is absolutely no difference between using the type name (
Int32) and the alias (int). They are exactly the same thing. They compile to the same IL.int x = new int();
Int32 y = 42;
Console.WriteLine($"{x}, {y}");
// Output: 0, 42Java differentiates between the primitive types and their reference type equivalents. In .NET, there is no difference. It sounds like whoever wrote that book was confused, and managed to spread the confusion. :)
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
That explains it. Then I'm right what String and string are concerned, but wrong about Int32 and int.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a fucking golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?" "You mean like from space?" "No, from Canada." If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.CDP1802 wrote:
Then I'm right what String and string are concerned
Nope again. :)
Stringandstringare exactly the same - an immutable reference type. The only reason you don't typically need to usenewwith a string is because the compiler has a deep knowledge of it. string.cs - Reference Source[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
CDP1802 wrote:
Classes are reference types, (many) aliases are treated like value types.
Nope. There is absolutely no difference between using the type name (
Int32) and the alias (int). They are exactly the same thing. They compile to the same IL.int x = new int();
Int32 y = 42;
Console.WriteLine($"{x}, {y}");
// Output: 0, 42Java differentiates between the primitive types and their reference type equivalents. In .NET, there is no difference. It sounds like whoever wrote that book was confused, and managed to spread the confusion. :)
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
We already got that sorted out, I think. Int32 is not a class, it's a struct. Now it makes sense and you are right. It makes no difference.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a fucking golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?" "You mean like from space?" "No, from Canada." If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns. -
CDP1802 wrote:
Then I'm right what String and string are concerned
Nope again. :)
Stringandstringare exactly the same - an immutable reference type. The only reason you don't typically need to usenewwith a string is because the compiler has a deep knowledge of it. string.cs - Reference Source[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Drat! :-)
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a fucking golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?" "You mean like from space?" "No, from Canada." If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns. -
When writing my C# code I was in the habit of using string (all lowercase) for strings declarations, etc. and String (capitalized) for method calls such as String.Empty and String.Format just as a sort of aide memoir that I was calling an object method. As I started to create String extension methods I reviewed this habit of mine and decided this was a pointless differentiation and switched to just using string all the time. At the same time I decided that my using Int32 for methods such as Int32.TryParse and just int in declarations, etc. was also pointless and perhaps confusing to others and so switched to using int all the time instead. It all compiles to the same IL code anyway so it was just a matter of style really. What do you think?
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
I used to do the same,
string variableandString.Format(...)andint variableandInt32.Parse(...). There was a good reason I did that though, Microsoft recommended doing it! Until I switched to Visual Studio 2015 and all of a sudden it started giving me "tips" to simplifyStringtostringandInt32toint... Thanks Microsoft, for sticking to your own guidelines :~ For the same reason I stopped usingthisandbase(unless necessary) andTheClassImIn.StaticMethodinstead of simplyStaticMethod. And yes, I know I can turn off those rules, but I like sticking to defaults :)Best, Sander arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript SQL Server for C# Developers Succinctly Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
