About best coding Style of C#

[kiplring]

1.
int[] intArr = new int[255];

2.
int[] intArr = new int[255];
rgnNumberArr.In itialize();

3.
int[] intArr = new int[255];
for( int i=0; i<intArr .lenght; i++)
{
intArr [i] = 0;
}

intArr allways initilized with 0 value?
or should I initialize it?

choose best code 1,2,3?

[Mark Wilden]

"Ian Semmel" <is***********@ NOKUNKrocketcom p.com.au> wrote in message
news:ef******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP03.phx.gbl...

To me, initialization of fields to default values just screams "the
writer doesn't know C#!"

It doesn't mean any such thing. It means that the coder has a variable
that he/she wants initialized to 0.

If she knows the basics of the C# language, then she'll know that if she
wants a field initialized to 0, she doesn't need to (and indeed should not)
use a field initializer.

///ark

[Göran Andersson]

Sericinus hunter wrote:

Mark Wilden wrote:

"Sericinus hunter" <se*****@flash. net> wrote in message
news:cz******** ************@ne wssvr21.news.pr odigy.com...

Another thing looks strange. We know now that explicit initialization
to default value is redundant and just plain wrong because efficiency
suffers.

To me, initialization of fields to default values just screams "the
writer doesn't know C#!"

I'm glad to have another reason besides snobbery to deprecate it.

This is documented and supposed to be followed, at least at MS.
Then, why compiler does not allow me do things like this:
int i;
int ii = i;
throwing "using unassigned variable" error?

(I assume you're talking about fields, not local variables - in the
latter case, i is not initialized.)

Sorry, I just jumped a step ahead without warning... We discussed
specification for field initialization, but I am talking about local
variables now. Looks like it is initialized. If I write:

int i;
i = 1;

and stop in the debugger right after its declaration, I can see it
having value 0.
And the message is quite clear on that: it says "unassigned ". It is
probably
due to the language spec vs CLI spec, and designed so just to be safer.

No, it's not initialized.

It has a value (as a variables always has one), and it happens to be
zero in this case, but the value is undefined and could be anything that
happened to be in that memory location on the stack when it was allocated.

[Sericinus hunter]

Göran Andersson wrote:

Sericinus hunter wrote:

....

Sorry, I just jumped a step ahead without warning... We discussed
specification for field initialization, but I am talking about local
variables now. Looks like it is initialized. If I write:

int i;
i = 1;

and stop in the debugger right after its declaration, I can see it
having value 0.
And the message is quite clear on that: it says "unassigned ". It is
probably
due to the language spec vs CLI spec, and designed so just to be safer.

No, it's not initialized.

It has a value (as a variables always has one), and it happens to be
zero in this case, but the value is undefined and could be anything that
happened to be in that memory location on the stack when it was allocated.

This makes sense. Thank you.

[Ian Semmel]

Mark Wilden wrote:

"Ian Semmel" <is***********@ NOKUNKrocketcom p.com.au> wrote in message
news:ef******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP03.phx.gbl...

To me, initialization of fields to default values just screams "the
writer doesn't know C#!"

It doesn't mean any such thing. It means that the coder has a variable
that he/she wants initialized to 0.

If she knows the basics of the C# language, then she'll know that if she
wants a field initialized to 0, she doesn't need to (and indeed should not)
use a field initializer.

///ark

No, in any language, the (equivalent) statement of

int x;

means that this variable exists, but it has a 'don't care' value, the
implication being that it will be set later on.

int x = 0;

means that it starts off with a definite value.

Similarly, parentheses should always be used in expressions without depending on
a language-specific hierarchy of operator precedence. It is an old 'C' hacker
convention to help the compiler by reducing the number of characters in source code.

It is a good idea to use a commonality of coding styles across all languages in
my opinion.

[Sericinus hunter]

Ian Semmel wrote:

Mark Wilden wrote:

....

If she knows the basics of the C# language, then she'll know that if
she wants a field initialized to 0, she doesn't need to (and indeed
should not) use a field initializer.

No, in any language, the (equivalent) statement of

int x;

means that this variable exists, but it has a 'don't care' value, the
implication being that it will be set later on.

int x = 0;

means that it starts off with a definite value.

Similarly, parentheses should always be used in expressions without
depending on a language-specific hierarchy of operator precedence. It is
an old 'C' hacker convention to help the compiler by reducing the number
of characters in source code.

It is a good idea to use a commonality of coding styles across all
languages in my opinion.

Just to make sure, we are talking about the same thing. What Mark says
(and what I agree with him upon) relates to type fields, not to local
variables. Fields have initializers, this is a feature of the language.
Fields are initialized automatically using processor instructions to
fill memory blocks with zeros, thus very efficiently. It would be just
silly to reassign a field to the same value again and besides using
less efficient higher level commands.

[newscorrespondent]

And some feel it is even more silly to not initialize such data. From a
managers perspective you don't know who is going to maintain that code
several years down the road when a whole new set of languages is being used
and those people may not know a thing about C#. Many perspectives can be
valid. What Albert wrote many years ago is still true, "It is all relative".

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Ian Semmel <is***********@ NOKUNKrocketcom p.com.au> wrote:

<snip>

It is a good idea to use a commonality of coding styles across all languages in
my opinion.

I couldn't disagree more.

Many languages have different coding conventions in many ways - naming
being the most obvious example. Some idioms from some languages *just
don't work* in others, or effectively fight against the language.

IMO it's worth going with the idioms, specification and conventions of
each language you use - try to avoid writing in one language with an
"accent" of another.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

<ne************ ***@charter.net > wrote:

And some feel it is even more silly to not initialize such data. From a
managers perspective you don't know who is going to maintain that code
several years down the road when a whole new set of languages is being used
and those people may not know a thing about C#. Many perspectives can be
valid. What Albert wrote many years ago is still true, "It is all relative".

While it's a valid viewpoint in some ways, I'd argue that anyone who
doesn't know C# to at least a reasonable extent shouldn't be
maintaining it. It's likely to be unproductive in the long run. Suppose
someone is used to C++ and starts maintaining C# - they might assume
that the RAII idiom works in C#, and so never calls Dispose on any
streams etc. Not a good idea.

I think it's good to try to avoid relying on people knowing really
obscure bits of the spec, but some basic knowledge is reasonable.

If we agree on that, the question is really whether or not default
values count as basic knowledge. Personally I'd say they are, but I
wouldn't be surprised to find people disagreeing.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Mark Wilden]

"Ian Semmel" <is***********@ NOKUNKrocketcom p.com.au> wrote in message
news:eH******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP05.phx.gbl...

No, in any language, the (equivalent) statement of

int x;

means that this variable exists, but it has a 'don't care' value, the
implication being that it will be set later on.
In C#, when x is a field, means that the variable's value is set to 0.
Similarly, parentheses should always be used in expressions without
depending on a language-specific hierarchy of operator precedence. It is
an old 'C' hacker convention to help the compiler by reducing the number
of characters in source code.

It is a good idea to use a commonality of coding styles across all
languages in my opinion.

I can't see any possible basis for that opinion. By that logic, we wouldn't
use OOP, since C doesn't support it.

[Mark Wilden]

<ne************ ***@charter.net > wrote in message
news:Wc******** *******@fe06.lg a...

And some feel it is even more silly to not initialize such data. From a
managers perspective you don't know who is going to maintain that code
several years down the road when a whole new set of languages is being
used
and those people may not know a thing about C#.

So you're saying we ought to write C# so that it can be understood by people
who do not know a thing about C#?