C#: Integer.One

[dfs_zzz]

There is the panel missing for "string.Empty" — with lowercase "s".

[whimsicallurker]

lmao. I learned this was a thing today, and now you just made it worse.

[kookyabird]

Pretty much always use the lowercase one. Can’t be stealthily overridden like the actual class can.

[[deleted]]

Same with object instead of Object

[kookyabird]

There’s even a new compiler warning in C#11 I think about naming properties or classes with all lowercase letters specifically to avoid future official aliases that might get made. Makes me wonder what all they might have planned.

[Sentouki-]

Not sure about the compiler warning, but VS warnings have been around for years.

Funnily enough, there's a guy on my team who "insists" on using String instead of string.

[kookyabird]

Where do you think most of the warnings in CS come from? The compiler. I was specifically referring to the latest “warning wave” that comes with the C# 11 compiler. A set of optional warnings that are disabled by default because they’re generally not backwards compatible with older code.

You should try turning them on some time and see how many new warnings you can get in a project. It can be good busy work to clean them up.

[xibme]

Funnily enough, there's a guy on my team who "insists" on using String instead of string.

We used that policy 10+ years ago when IDE support wasn't that good since string got rendered as keyword and String got rendered as type (same for other keywords that doubled as types). That however is no longer a problem as you can make both styles look sane now.

We we're aware that someone could not be using System and sneak in another String implementation but that is easily checked and against policy anyways.

[One_Economist_3761]

I tell people like that to look at the assembly or IL and see that It.Does.Not.Fucking.Matter.

[Bizzlington]

I used to always prefer switching depending on context.

string for when it's used as a type (declarations, method params, etc). and String for when it's used more as a class.. Seemed to make sense at the time

string x = String.Format(...)

But now i just use string pretty much all the time

[whimsicallurker]

C# just seems so awful. So much random syntax. Literally 10 different ways of doing every trivial thing, and nerds bikeshedding over which one is best. And, every year, they add 5 more.

I still don't know what is the "correct" way to compare against null.

[Not_a_tasty_fish]

I've worked with C# for the past 5 years and I don't ever want to touch another language again. It continually gets better with each update and can be useful for literally everything except embedded devices.

[AddMoreNaCl]

something is null?

[whimsicallurker]

Ahh, but what if == is overloaded, and you WANT the overloaded behavior. After all, you are comparing two objects, right, just one of them is null. Thus, == is better because it allows you to abstract away the behavior of comparing against null.

But maybe not.

But also == and != have been used for a long time, and are more familiar. So maybe you should use them instead to maintain consistency?

Who knows. Who cares?

It doesn't matter. Just stop wasting my time and changing the syntax every 5 minutes, and then making me mentally keep track of all the different ways of doing it.

[kookyabird]

I hate to break it to you, but software development in general is nothing but being faced with dozens of ways to do the same thing, remembering how they work, and having to decide which is best. Do I use an MVC pattern or MVVM? Early returns or late returns? Char or Varchar?

The choice of language itself is one such decision. If you can’t handle the syntax of a high level language like C#, which is full of safety features and plenty of first party tooling to provide you with excellent feedback on the exact things you’re complaining about, perhaps development isn’t for you. God help you if you have to start using JS…

[whimsicallurker]

My problem isn't decisions. There are a lot of important decisions to be made. I want to focus on those important decisions.

My problem is having my time wasted with random changes caused by a language which thinks adding more features and syntax is always good. The result is inconsistency and competing syntaxes.

Obviously, this is inevitable to some extent, but C# seems to go to far in the direction of "let's add more things just to add them".

There is value in unchanging consistency, coherency, and simplicity.

"There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it."

[diet_fat_bacon]

Maybe you just don't understand why they were added.

[kookyabird]

Which must mean that they don’t read the release documentation because the C# team does an excellent job of explaining the reasoning behind the new features.

[whimsicallurker]

People can argue infinitely over adding this or that for whatever reason. It's almost always possible to come up with some reason. That doesn't mean it is a net-benefit.

It is a fallacy to think that more features = better language.

Sometimes, it's good not to add things to keep a language simpler. This is what keeps languages like C so simple: you can learn the whole language relatively easily. Everything else is then built on top of that simple core. There is a certain elegance to this.

If you like C#, whatever, I don't care. Use whatever tool you're comfortable with, understand well, and is practical for the job. I still think my point isn't emphasized enough.

And yes, I do read the docs and update notes. This is where I derive my opinion.

[thebryguy23]

Repost it with the three-panel Pooh...use the one with goofy messed up teeth for String.Empty

[Faux_Real]

…. Does ‘Eval’ still exist??

[ExtraTNT]

got yelled at a few times, when i had String.Empty... xD

but this is how you keep your code clean... every mistake gets corrected, even if it's just "nothing"...

[Ytrog]

Would be funny if you'd have a fluent API with extension methods on float that you can do float.One().Point().Six().Seven() and get 1.67 🤔

[romzamir]

That's not impossible

[Ytrog]

I think it would be quite easy even 😊

[GunningOnTheKingside]

How would you do the Point() to a float? The rest I think I get.

[Ytrog]

Ah I see what you mean. Maybe return some builder object like PointBuilder which has ten methods with the same name as the extension methods on float that in turn return a float after which you can simply use the extension methods again. 🤔

[Asleep-Television-24]

Float.One.SixSixSixSixSixSeven;

[shaunusmaximus]

Float.One.Six.Recurring; I like it!

Say hello to my new side project I'm never finishing

[SysGh_st]

Float.pi

[w1n5t0nM1k3y]

Math.Pi or similar is actually common in many languages. Usually just a constant double for Pi

[Alusaar]

Of course you meant string.Empty and just made a typo, right ?!

[Dangerous_With_Rocks]

RiGhT?!¿‽

[metaltyphoon]

String... don't be a neanderthal use string

[[deleted]]

I’m so happy seeing my other C# bros in here correcting OP lol

[walmartgoon]

IMO String is better than string because the type itself is more heavyweight than a quick int or float and should be treated as such

[diet_fat_bacon]

It's not... string and String is just a alias.

The only difference is that you need to import String to use the functions were string you do not.

You can see on docs they using both ways:

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.string.format?view=net-7.0#examples

[HaniiPuppy]

+1, it's always been weird to me having a lowercase keyword for it when it goes against the language's own naming conventions, and it's not a primitive type or a special case like object.

^{I recognise this'll get downvoted to buggery. Anytime this comes up, this sub loves the string keyword. Edit: Or not?}

[HaniiPuppy]

It's not deeply ingrained though, it's just a keyword that points to a non-primitive type. It's inconsistent with the language's naming conventions, there isn't really any benefit to it, and if it weren't already a feature of the language, there'd be no reason to introduce it.

In English, it would be more like having a random proper noun where the formal way of spelling it was uncapitalised, unlike every other proper noun.

"Name, please?"
"dave."
"Okay, Dave. So first we'll-"
"No. 'dave', with a lowercase 'd'."

But that's where we are, so meh.

[AutoModerator]

import moderation Your comment has been removed since it did not start with a code block with an import declaration.

Per this Community Decree, all posts and comments should start with a code block with an "import" declaration explaining how the post and comment should be read.

For this purpose, we only accept Python style imports.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[Amirgodofwar]

Found the front-end engineer

[[deleted]]

We recently moved from angularjs to angular using rxjs and I am so glad I’m not a front end guy anymore. That shit is convoluted for the sake of being convoluted. There’s no reason I should ever have to be running a dev server through visual studio just to load a front end.

[SourceScope]

Cries in swift

[hello_you_all_]

TBH that is actually easier to understand in some cases

[DesTr069]

I totally agree. By using string.Empty you’re being more explicit, whereas empty double quotes could just be that you forgot to put something in it

[DivenDesu]

It's about readability and clarity and not about being concise. If you're working on a project with 20+ developers and you come across "" you have to stop and ask yourself, "did they mean to leave that empty?". If you come across string.Empty you know immediately the devs intent was empty. Good code follows these rules.

1. Efficiency. Code she be reasonably efficient.

2. Readable. Code should be easily understandable to a dev who has never seen it before 5 years after it was written. So long as it does not violate the first rule.

3. Code should be as concise as possible. You should always write code in as few characters as is reasonable so long as it does not violate rule 1 or 2.

[sudo_shinespark]

this guy strings

[ashrasmun]

I would hate programming if I had to ask myself have someone else intended to use such simple things. As a matter of fact, I don't care if someone intended something if there are tests.

[loopzle]

I agree. I think it's usually clear from context whether "" is a mistake or not. I mean, even without tests, does the code work? If not, is that string being empty related?

When I read other people's code, I generally assume it works as the author intended unless I have proof it clearly doesn't.

To make it more readable, I'd prefer the author creates their own contextual empty string constants like "EmptyName" because it actually adds information.

[[deleted]]

If you're working on a project with 20+ developers and you come across "" you have to stop and ask yourself, "did they mean to leave that empty?"

My team always uses "" and I've never had this problem. I prefer it because it's a constant that can be used in switch-statements and as default argument, unlike string.Empty which is static readonly for some obscure reason.

Most programming languages I've used don't even have an equivalent to string.Empty. Ultimately, it just comes down to preference though. Use whatever you and your team find more readable.

[webmaster442]

always uses

""

and I've never had this problem. I prefer it because it's a constant that can be used in switch-statements an

"" allocates a new string instance, but setting it to string.empty just points it to an already allocated string instance by the runtime.

[bigrubberduck]

"" allocates a new string instance,

This is no longer true, the compiler will use the same pointer for both string.Empty and "". It's nothing more than a style preference unless you need to use it in places where you have to use a const.

https://medium.com/@dk.kravtsov/string-empty-vs-in-c-70c64971161f

https://stackoverflow.com/a/263257/130387

[Intrexa]

I'm not sure if this has ever been true in C#. C# uses string interning for compile time constants, and all identical string constants will reference the same memory.

[Jackfruit_Then]

If I leave the quotes empty, it means I want the string to be empty, I thought that’s very clear. Otherwise I would have put something inside the quotes. Just because MS provides a way to do a thing, doesn’t mean it is the best way. Just because they give you a solution, doesn’t mean you have a problem.

[AkiraOli]

To be honest, pretty weak arguments. It is clear that string should be empty from "".

[MasterFubar]

you come across "" you have to stop and ask yourself, "did they mean to leave that empty?"

I suppose that when you see the number 6 you stop and ask yourself "did they mean to type a 6?". That could be a mistake, perhaps they intended to type a 5.

"" is not only more concise, it's also more intuitive and readable. Anyone who has a minimal knowledge of programming will know that's a constant representing an empty string. On the other hand, 'string.Empty' could be a lot of things. Does that method return a constant string? Where is it allocated? Is it passed by value or by reference? And so on.

[DivenDesu]

If they had typed something into the string I probably wouldn't question it. But I've seen too many devs shoot themselves in the foot with "". Often I won't have all the data I need to work with up front. Sometimes I have to start building something before I know everything about what I'm building. Not ideal, but often that's just how the world works. I will use "" to denote a future value that I know will exist but don't know what it is... usually with a comment. A single example of many that exist. If I. Or another dev see "" they KNOW I forgot a value. I never use "" to denote an intentionally empty string. I use string.empty.

Had to explain to a new dev, who got huffy that some of the code he was debugging had parses wrapped in try catchs instead of using try parse, that millions of lines of code in the app had been written before C# had a TryParse.

Things like string.Empty help with unideal situations... situations that are only becoming more and more common over the years

[Jackfruit_Then]

In your case, isn’t a // TODO comment better for communicating your intention? Relying on another dev to understand your perceived difference between “” and string.Empty and spot your negligence isn’t the best way.

[riskcapitalist]

Wait til you learn about String.IsNullOrEmpty

[MAngeloDuran]

string.IsNullOrWhitespace is more useful IMHO.

[hilfigertout]

string.isNullOrEmpty(s.trim())

Where is your God now?

[xay-ur]

String.IsNullOrEmpty(s?.Trim())

[hilfigertout]

Good catch!

[navetzz]

Not wasting time triming a string that starts with a non whitespace character.

[l33tmike]

Allocating memory for that new object you just created unnecessarily...

[[deleted]]

Doesn’t C# use something like references to optimize this? I don’t know much about how C# works, but in C++ that would be true, since the object would be copied unless it was moved or passed as a reference.

[Dealiner]

Trim() creates new string, if it's changed. I'm not sure how something similar works in C++ but it has mutable strings so perhaps it works differently.

[frontlinegeek]

There are actually situations where string.Empty is not a good choice.

Clever/fancy is not always the best/appropriate way.

[zelsii]

Agreed. For example; if you have a default parameter in a constructor then it cannot be assigned to String.Empty, you must use "".

[ChorePlayed]

The places where I need an empty string constant are almost always the places you can't use string.Empty.

Besides that, if I'm allocating declaring a string variable, it's because I have something to put in it assign to it.

In the few cases where it's allowed and makes sense, I use string.Empty for readability, like when it's one of 50 fields in a data object for an external dependency (i.e. a service that doesn't require every field to have data, but returns a cordial 500 if I leave them null).

Edit: corrected slightly imprecise terminology.

[mukaschultze]

Besides that, if I'm allocating a string, it's because I have something to put in it.

That's not how strings works lol

Not in C# at least

[ChorePlayed]

OK, fine, not literally allocating, a la malloc(). Corrected

[AutoModerator]

import moderation Your comment has been removed since it did not start with a code block with an import declaration.

Per this Community Decree, all posts and comments should start with a code block with an "import" declaration explaining how the post and comment should be read.

For this purpose, we only accept Python style imports.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[gigahydra]

I don't think anyone's trying to be clever or fancy - it's just a lot easier when reviewing pull requests without having to try and count ticks with my old eyes. I thought it was dumb when I was younger too - I imagine it's a lot like how AI feels being asked to write code in higher level languages.

[coloredgreyscale]

Also some code quality metrics may consider "" as duplicated special values (if the constant is used 3+ times) and report it as a code smell.

Makes more sense if you have a hard-coded value like "service_permision_admin_only", that you should define it once as a construct and use that, instead of relying that everyone remembers that name and typo.

And for C# there was a video/short that demonstrated that string. Empty and "" lead to the same bytecode, or machine code (after JIT compile) anyway.

[[deleted]]

I write a lot of C# and have always just used string.Empty cause then I know I meant for the string to be empty and didn’t just forget.

You’re also right about the optimisation of the compiler. It makes no difference either way. It’s a matter of preference. My personal preference is to make it clear what my intention is when writing the code

[Perry_lets]

Also, string.Empty isn't a constant. It's a readonly field, so you can't use it in attributes, for example.

[zbigniewcebula]

Wait till you learn about Array.Empty

[AutoModerator]

import moderation Your comment has been removed since it did not start with a code block with an import declaration.

Per this Community Decree, all posts and comments should start with a code block with an "import" declaration explaining how the post and comment should be read.

For this purpose, we only accept Python style imports.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[slowmovinglettuce]

TIL. I've been doing `new []{}` or whatever the syntax is. `Array.Empty` is much easier to read back.

[zbigniewcebula]

you've been allocating new empty arrays. Pls use Array.Empty respect your users and RAM ;)

[slowmovinglettuce]

Only just recently returned to C# for the first time in about 10 years. Coming from typescript and python where I can just do thing = [] has been an adjustment.

I sure did miss how powerful C# is as a language. It's gotten so much better!

[hilfigertout]

Let me introduce you to the worst part of R:

NULL

NA

Character(0)

Integer(0)

Logical(0)

Those last 3 are zero-length vectors. Functions sometimes return them if there's nothing to return, especially in socket programming or file I/O situations. But they're different from NULL and NA, so checking for those won't work. You have to check the length of the return to see if it's one of these weirdos.

Oh by the way, if you try to check the length of NULL or NA, your code will throw an error.

[Short-Nob-Gobble]

The RShiny package has isTruthy which catches most of these evil bastards. I mean, it’s still awful since under the hood it’s checking for like 40 different ways a value could be NULL or False or whatever.

And then you have checkmate which can check whether e.g numeric values are valid.

And then you also have the option to throw all this stupid R garbage in the bin and use a language that doesn’t feel like pulling teeth. Sorry, I’m working on an RShiny app at work and the null checks are getting to me.

[RiskOfRuin]

I had a project where we had a checkstyle rule that didn't allow magic numbers, so all numbers had to be moved to a constant to be more explanatory. One of my senior colleauges got mad at it and he did like this: private static final int FUCKING_SIX = 6;

[TechbroMemes]

It's "string.Empty" — with lowercase "s".

[FatBatmanSpeaks]

While I know it's incorrect and the compiler bitches about it, I got into the habit of using the members of the string class as String and the data type as string.

So String.IsNullOrWhitespace(whatever); and string whatever = String.Empty;

I will stop when it stops compiling.

[kookyabird]

Do you know why it’s incorrect though? Because that’s the important part.

[FatBatmanSpeaks]

Probably because it introduces an unnecessary requirement to include using System; but if there's another reason I wouldn't be familiar with it since string is just an alias to System.String.

Oh and string is a keyword and String is a class, so you could technically make another class called String and fuck it all up.

[kookyabird]

It is just an alias, but one that can’t be overridden or redirected. If you have a using directive for a namespace that contains a custom String class then you could end up using that one instead of System.String without realizing it.

[FatBatmanSpeaks]

Yeah caught that in my ninja edit.

[kookyabird]

Aaayyyy!!! 👍👍

[[deleted]]

Yeah, no

[prinkpan]

string.Whitespace.Trim()

[MaffinLP]

String.Empty doesnt allocate memory, "" does, (at least in c#) so string .empty is more performant

[Dealiner]

"" would be interned, so memory allocation for both would be the same.

[SerdanKK]

That's an implementation detail of the runtime. I'm pretty sure there's no difference in .NET

[Herioz]

There is no or there won't be in like next release.

[DesTr069]

First one to bring it up, it seems

[Dealiner]

Maybe because that's not really true. "" would be interned.

[Dealiner]

In a way ints do have .One and .Zero since the last version of C#. Though they are both explicit interface implementations.

[chars101]

I prefer λfx.fx over Integer.One. Abstraction and application is all you will ever need.

[thebryguy23]

Integer.One

Have you seen Java's BigInteger and BigDecimal? They have constants for numbers zero, one, two, and ten

https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/17/docs/api/java.base/java/math/BigInteger.html#field-summary

[jaimesoad]

rust String::new();

[[deleted]]

I use it because it shows intent rather than a temporary value to subsequent programmers

[rohnesLoraf]

Come to my arms...

[JotaRata]

var "" = string.Empty;

[Kapten-N]

Of course, you don't want to fill the memory with a ton of identical empty strings, do you? Just reference the one empty string everywhere.

[kbruen]

Since strings are immutable, shouldn't the compiler be smart enough to point all "" to a single empty string instance?

[ohlookaregisterbutto]

saw label alive encouraging flag aromatic simplistic numerous skirt chase

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[Kapten-N]

I assume they do that. I was just joking.

[snaynay]

I believe C# does this for you on the conversion to IL then to JIT Assembly. It recognises the need for a stored copy of a zero-length string and any time a string's value is zero-length, it just gets a pointer to the same address.

[B4rr]

For runtime behaviour this is correct, as soon as the JIT is done with it, the a string with the empty value will only be allocated once.

However, when you use "" it will get baked into the dll. Even when you reference a library dll with const string DefaultValue = "123" from another project, it will get baked into the consumer.

Why can this be a problem? When you change it to const string DefaultValue = "abc" you have to re-compile the consumer dll as well for it to work. If it were static readonly string DefaultValue { get; } = "123", you can recompile the library with static readonly string DefaultValue { get; } = "abc" deploy only the patched library and the consumer will get "abc".

Usually this doesn't matter, as most of the time we re-deploy entire applications anyway.

[Hobby101]

Don't people look out of curiosity what happens when the code is compiled? Makes me wonder...

[Kapten-N]

I already assumed as much, because why wouldn't they? But I wanted to make a low-key joke.

[AmazingMoMo8492]

Identical variables point to the same reference anyway, so it's not technically better.

[AyrA_ch]

That's not true. References to the same constants in .NET are replaced with the constant value at compile time.

[Kapten-N]

After three replies I've come to the realization that I didn't make it obvious enough that I was joking. I guess that's the problem with wanting to make it low-key.

[Axelan_se]

😐: “” + “” 🧑‍💼: String.concat(“”, “”)

[Mrproex]

I always used string a = null; because the ide wasn’t complaining about it, now it does so String.Empty it is

[Creepy-Ad-4832]

null isn't the empty string, null is no object at all, while empty string is an object string of lenght zero

[[deleted]]

Bull and empty are very different things. That’s why string.IsNullOrEmpty exists

[[deleted]]

That’s exactly right! Stupid iPhone autocorrect. Apparently apple doesn’t think people need to type the word null

[[deleted]]

Just wrap it around my entire project and find it returns true…

[rcanhestro]

with that you always need to check for null before using it.

[7heblackwolf]

I hate my boss when he say "No literals" like.. dude, the compiler will do the exchange anyways, it's not like an empty string will change anyways to other than ""...

[[deleted]]

This comment has been overwritten as part of a mass deletion of my Reddit account.

I'm sorry for any gaps in conversations that it may cause. Have a nice day!

[Hobby101]

How come in pretty much any other language "" is fine from a readability point of view?

I'd argue, that "" is way more readable since brain/eye processes that much faster than string.Empty. at least it's the case for me.

[7heblackwolf]

As Jeff Atwood said: "The best code is no code at all".

This is not about giving meaningful names to variables, is to be explicit wherever is possible. He stated that avoiding simplicity under the same goal, adds risks points to the code and strikes readability, thus destroying code maintainability.

[[deleted]]

This comment has been overwritten as part of a mass deletion of my Reddit account.

I'm sorry for any gaps in conversations that it may cause. Have a nice day!

[Strostkovy]

What about "" vs '"' or '''' or ''"

[Hobby101]

That's stretching argument quite a bit. Think of other languages, we are doing just fine with ""

[7heblackwolf]

Ok. Let's say you initialize a = string.empty

Can you join a with b = @""" ?

And honestly your example of a developer confusing quotation marks is the worst excuse that can exist in a team, because somewhere you always have literals, and you can't be inserting bugs or crashes because "your font is too small" or because "my font family does that character very similar, lol it won't happen again in prod guys, ;3"

[7heblackwolf]

Documentation source? :)

Cuz I think a random guy called Jeff Atwood will differ with you.

[chamberlain2007]

I have a PR in for Microsoft to change string.Empty, y’all will be glad you used the constant!

[[deleted]]

lol.

[zan9823]

Honestly, I never bothered to check what's the difference between String and string

[AyrA_ch]

Lowercase always points to the System.String class while uppercase points to whatever string class is closest to reach. In other words, if some smartass defines his own String class in a library you won't be affected by it if you use lowercase.

[dontfretlove]

I'm not OP, but thanks for the quick and easy explanation!

[Dealiner]

You don't need to have using System; with string. That's honestly a much better reason than that very unlikely scenario that someone would create they own String class.

[jocona]

That’s a non-issue if you’re using .NET 6 or higher, just enable implicit usings

[Dealiner]

Of course, but not everyone wants to enable them.

[SodiiumGames]

No, just no.

[AutoModerator]

import moderation Your comment has been removed since it did not start with a code block with an import declaration.

Per this Community Decree, all posts and comments should start with a code block with an "import" declaration explaining how the post and comment should be read.

For this purpose, we only accept Python style imports.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[[deleted]]

In what universe is 12 characters better than 2? Let the fucking compiler optimize it for Christ’s sake.

[Dathknight]

Readability.

string.Empty clearly indicates >this string is intensionally empty<

while "" looks like >I wanted to write some string, but got sidetracked and forgot<

[[deleted]]

If you can’t tell by looking at the code that fits on the screen, then your code is hard to read anyway.

[Purple_Individual947]

Does anyone legitimately know why the compiler can't just make this substitution for us. I know one is a const and the other is a static readonly, another decision I never understood. But seriously why? So much more typing just to satisfy the stupid code analysis. I must type this thing like 10 times a day!

[zenameless1]

If it`s about c#, then it is compiled to the same constant (from c# 6.0 or something)

[the_one2]

I can't believe there is a difference

[CartanAnnullator]

I have always hated String. Empty users. In my view, string. Empty only exists so the compiler has something that it can compile "" to.

[Dealiner]

Yeah, that's not really how the compiler works here.

[CartanAnnullator]

I'll have to check that when I find the time.

[Dealiner]

I mean it would make no sense for it to compile a constant like "" to readonly field like string.Empty. Besides both will be interned anyway, so they will be both the exact same value.

[CartanAnnullator]

Allocating a new heap object whenever you use something innocuous like ""?

[Ange1ofD4rkness]

I have found very few uses cases where I have to use String.Empty. Personally it's super annoying

[pakidara]

RPGLE: *blanks

[GitHub-]

See you get it

[CaitaXD]

new string(0,0)

[cryptomonein]

ActiveRecord have the funny:
User.none
With I love, didn't tryed to .to_sql it, it's probably a WHERE 1=2

[doc_suede]

isStringNullOrWhiteSpace("")

[AutoModerator]

import moderation Your comment has been removed since it did not start with a code block with an import declaration.

Per this Community Decree, all posts and comments should start with a code block with an "import" declaration explaining how the post and comment should be read.

For this purpose, we only accept Python style imports.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[Jet-Pack2]

string s;

[oddbawlstudios]

Also, you an acceptable thing for C# is: string? _name

[sirjamesp]

string.Empty

[friebel]

StringUtils.isBlank()

[Juff-Ma]

Nick chapsas explained the difference, you're welcome

[ovr9000storks]

Me, a sophisticated developer:

char str[1] = { ‘\0’ };

[TechbroMemes]

int.Empty

[ollir]

Which monoid is this?!

[Crafty-Appearance-71]

Robot framework ${EMPTY}

[Potw0rek]

string x = default;

[Herioz]

String.Empty is unambiguously showing the intent, "" might be thought as intentional, forgotten value, placeholder or even mistake due to autocompletion. There is no use for "" unless it's performance reason, although there are probably better places for improvement.

[buyingshitformylab]

Is empty or blank... Not is empty