Skip to main content

The Correct Way to use var in C#

The .NET community is not widely controversial, though there is a strong topic that appears to come up time and time again when I pair with other developers - how to use var in C#.

The var keyword was introduced in .NET 3.5. Unlike other languages this is still a strongly typed declaration. For example if we declare a string using var then we cannot re-assign this variable to another type. This would be a compile time error.

There are two parties who have strong feelings about the use of var, both of which are wrong.

Never use var

Some developers suggest the use of var be denied. This leads to code such as the following. Overly verbose, and in some cases obscuring the intent of the code. This can commonly be seen when dealing with collections or generics.

Always use var

Other developers claim you should "var all the things". This leads to code which has the opposite problem from above. The intent of the code can be obscured due to not knowing what type you are dealing with. This is especially important during code reviews or times when you are not relying on the IDE's intellisense to remind you what you are dealing with. After all code is read many more times than it is written.

Best of both worlds

The solution to this issue is simple. Where the type cannot be inferred just by looking at the source code (aka the type is on the right), use a strongly typed declaration. Where the type can be inferred, use implicit typing. Using the same examples as above, this would look like the following.

As with most things when it comes to software development, there is never a black and white answer. Always gauge decisions and patterns based on context. Just because automated tooling such as the excellent Resharper suggests you use implicit typing doesn't always make it correct.

Bonus

Talking of Resharper, a quick Alt+Enter on a type/implicit declaration will allow you to switch between modes, meaning you can be lazy and have the IDE pull in the right type when required.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Constant Object Anti Pattern

Most constants are used to remove magic numbers or variables that lack context. A classic example would be code littered with the number 7. What does this refer to exactly? If this was replaced with DaysInWeek or similar, much clarity is provided. You can determine that code performing offsets would be adding days, rather than a mysterious number seven.Sadly a common pattern which uses constants is the use of a single constant file or object. The beauty of constants is clarity, and the obvious fact such variables are fixed. When a constant container is used, constants are simply lumped together. These can grow in size and often become a dumping ground for all values within the application.A disadvantage of this pattern is the actual value is hidden. While a friendly variable name is great, there will come a time where you will want to know the actual value. This forces you to navigate, if only to peek at the value within the constant object. A solution is to simple perform a refactor …

Three Steps to Code Quality via TDD

Common complaints and problems that I've both encountered and hear other developers raise when it comes to the practice of Test Driven Development are: Impossible to refactor without all the tests breakingMinor changes require hours of changes to test codeTest setup is huge, slow to write and difficult to understandThe use of test doubles (mocks, stubs and fakes is confusing)Over the next three posts I will demonstrate three easy steps that can resolve the problems above. In turn this will allow developers to gain one of the benefits that TDD promises - the ability to refactor your code mercifully in order to improve code quality.StepsStop Making Everything PublicLimit the Amount of Dependencies you Use A Unit is Not Always a Method or ClassCode quality is a tricky subject and highly subjective, however if you follow the three guidelines above you should have the ability to radically change implementation details and therefore improve code quality when needed.

DRY vs DAMP in Tests

In the previous post I mentioned that duplication in tests is not always bad. Sometimes duplication becomes a problem. Tests can become large or virtually identically excluding a few lines. Changes to these tests can take a while and increase the maintenance overhead. At this point, DRY violations need to be resolved.SolutionsTest HelpersA common solution is to extract common functionality into setup methods or other helper utilities. While this will remove and reduce duplication this can make tests a bit harder to read as the test is now split amongst unrelated components. There is a limit to how useful such extractions can help as each test may need to do something slightly differently.DAMP - Descriptive and Meaningful PhrasesDescriptive and Meaningful Phrases is the alter ego of DRY. DAMP tests often use the builder pattern to construct the System Under Test. This allows calls to be chained in a fluent API style, similar to the Page Object Pattern. Internally the implementation wil…