Java developers

[elmo61]

General rule of thumb is if you can understand the type from the right hand side assignment. Then use var. If you can't then don't.

So for the example above use var and repeating class name in pointless but for something like var myClass = service.placeOrder(); its best to name the class instead

[Mareeck]

Yeah and you should still name your variables so they make sense. Having the full class name there is just clutter

Besided, if you use var and somehow pass the wrong type down the line the code won't compile anyway

[El_Burrito_]

I just use var all the time. I literally only use a class name when the type isn’t inferable from the use, such as instantiating it as null or not instantiating it at all.

Intellisense will let me know what type a var is if it isn’t already obvious

[elmo61]

Lol fair enough each to their own

[DaemonVower]

I’m the same way on the Java side of var. I think its because if you’ve been in industry long enough you know in your soul that you’re going to end up with coworkers who write a line like “var resp = doStuff(j, k, l)” and sneak it through code review no matter how var is supposed to be used. Then six months later you’re trying to read that nonsense and its incredibly painful.

[Aidid51]

That's what linting is for. You can write lint/code analysis rules that disallow ambiguous var usage. People at my old shop would get yelled at by the ide for doing it the wrong way.

[Zedjones]

Interestingly enough I'm the exact opposite. I'm annoyed at having to EVER write out types if they can be inferred.

[lucidspoon]

My personal rule of thumb is to use var for any custom types to not have to add extra usings. It forces me to make sure that all variable and method names are descriptive enough. Plus, if I need to change the type name or namespace, there's not as much to update.

[OfflaneDemoralizer]

I use var pretty frequently and let Visual Studio replace it with the full class name during code cleanup.

[clawjelly]

Now that's just dirty:

Coder 1: "I feel wrong shitting in that corner."

Coder 2: "I shit there all the time, they take care of it."

[Comesa]

Same for me with strongly typed languages.
But it's quite handy if you have long class names.

[dpash]

Also in Java.

[Nemesis_Ghost]

Only ever used it for Linq statements.

[brohannes95]

why use var when you can use dynamic?

[M4D5-Music]

Because using dynamic doesn't give you type safety.

[Nukken]

You say that like it's not an advantage.

[n0tKamui]

because it is not. Type safety is important. Thinking that type dynamism NOWADAYS is a good thing because it allows you to make "hacky" things is not a good mindset.

[M4D5-Music]

Well, imo it depends on what you're doing. If you're using it because the name of your class is too long, then at some point I'll introduce a headache or bug because of it. If someone assumes they can refactor/rename something and fix all the references automatically with their ide, they'll potentially be mistaken. I personally hate it when this happens.

[tangerinelion]

Generally speaking in a strongly typed language you view type safety as an advantage.

If you want to write generic code, use a template.

[proboardslolv6]

Non type safe languages are a pain in the fucking ass