|
web
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What is string.empty used for?
I can't say: if string.empty then I have to use: if string = "" then which is ok, I just want to know what .empty is for. "cj" <cj@nospam.nospam> schrieb: \\\> What is string.empty used for? > > I can't say: if string.empty then > I have to use: if string = "" then > > which is ok, I just want to know what .empty is for. If x = String.Empty Then ... End If /// is semantically equivalent to \\\ If x = "" Then ... End If /// -- M S Herfried K. Wagner M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/> V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/> CJ,
There are endless methods to tell that a string exist however does not contain any character. One of those is string.empy another one string="" and string=nothing although that initializes. In this newsgroup is once taken the string="" for the string without any character. However I would not botter to much. The only dangerous one can be the string=nothing, because that test as well on a string that was in advance no string (Is Nothing) I hope this helps, Cor Show quoteHide quote "cj" <cj@nospam.nospam> schreef in bericht news:uMG6x47YGHA.3444@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > What is string.empty used for? > > I can't say: if string.empty then > I have to use: if string = "" then > > which is ok, I just want to know what .empty is for. Use String.Empty to initialise strings to zero-length.
Dim s As String s = String.Empty To check whether a string is zero length, check the Length property. If s.Length = 0 Then '... End If http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/fxcop/Docs/Rules/Performance/TestForEmptyStringsUsingStringLength.html Show quoteHide quote "cj" <cj@nospam.nospam> wrote in message news:uMG6x47YGHA.3444@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > What is string.empty used for? > > I can't say: if string.empty then > I have to use: if string = "" then > > which is ok, I just want to know what .empty is for. To add on what Herfried and Cor have already said, I prefer the use of
String.Empty to "". Yes, they're syntactically correct, but the few extra keystrokes are worth the added clarity. Is there a space in there that I can't see becuase of the IDE's font setting? Is one of the double quotes really two single quotes? Better to avoid the potential for confusion and just use String.Empty. - Mitchell S. Honnert Show quoteHide quote "cj" <cj@nospam.nospam> wrote in message news:uMG6x47YGHA.3444@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > What is string.empty used for? > > I can't say: if string.empty then > I have to use: if string = "" then > > which is ok, I just want to know what .empty is for. Well, I see I typed my question a bit off again. When I posted
if string.empty I meant it to be interpreted if mystring.empty which I assumed would return a True or False and it doesn't. I didn't expect for anyone to think I meant using it like if mystring = string.empty But ok, I see what .empty is all about now. And I don't like it. mystring = "" has been around for ages now an is obvious beyond any doubt to me so I surely don't think saying mystring = string.empty is any better. Heck I was confusing in my post. But then that's just my opinion. :) Thanks to everyone for explaining .empty to me! Mitchell S. Honnert wrote: Show quoteHide quote > To add on what Herfried and Cor have already said, I prefer the use of > String.Empty to "". Yes, they're syntactically correct, but the few extra > keystrokes are worth the added clarity. Is there a space in there that I > can't see becuase of the IDE's font setting? Is one of the double quotes > really two single quotes? Better to avoid the potential for confusion and > just use String.Empty. > > - Mitchell S. Honnert > > > "cj" <cj@nospam.nospam> wrote in message > news:uMG6x47YGHA.3444@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> What is string.empty used for? >> >> I can't say: if string.empty then >> I have to use: if string = "" then >> >> which is ok, I just want to know what .empty is for. > > "cj" <cj@nospam.nospam> schrieb: That's because 'String.Empty' is shared.> Well, I see I typed my question a bit off again. When I posted > if string.empty > > I meant it to be interpreted > if mystring.empty > > which I assumed would return a True or False and it doesn't. > I didn't expect for anyone to think I meant using it like > if mystring = string.empty > But ok, I see what .empty is all about now. And I don't like it. Dito.> mystring = "" has been around for ages now an is obvious beyond any doubt Full ACK. I wonder why the VB compiler doesn't emit 'String.Empty' for > to me so I surely don't think saying mystring = string.empty is any > better. empty-string literals. -- M S Herfried K. Wagner M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/> V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/> Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] wrote:
> "cj" <cj@nospam.nospam> schrieb: Wouldn't that be nice - from the little I understand of I.L.Code, the .. . . >> mystring = "" has been around for ages now an is obvious beyond any >> doubt to me so I surely don't think saying mystring = string.empty is >> any better. > > Full ACK. I wonder why the VB compiler doesn't emit 'String.Empty' for > empty-string literals. > compiler does come up with something a bit different in each case (not surprisingly). Given ... If s1 = String.Empty Then .... the ILCode produced looks like: IL_0001: ldloc.0 IL_0002: ldsfld string [mscorlib]System.String::Empty IL_0007: ldc.i4.0 IL_0008: call int32 [Microsoft.VisualBasic] ....CompilerServices.StringType::StrCmp( string, string, bool ) But if you use the "old-fashioned" ... If s1 = "" Then .... the compiler produces this instead: IL_0001: ldloc.0 IL_0002: ldstr "" IL_0007: ldc.i4.0 IL_0008: call int32 [Microsoft.VisualBasic] ....CompilerServices.StringType::StrCmp( string, string, bool ) So does it really matter? Is "ldstr" so much slower than "ldsfld" that "String.Empty" really is worth all the extra typing? <advocate owner="devil" > Is String.Empty really so much more readible than ""? Regards, Phill W.
Show quote
Hide quote
"Phill W." <p-.-a-.-w-a-r-d@o-p-e-n-.-a-c-.-u-k> schrieb: IMO no.>>> mystring = "" has been around for ages now an is obvious beyond any >>> doubt to me so I surely don't think saying mystring = string.empty is >>> any better. >> >> Full ACK. I wonder why the VB compiler doesn't emit 'String.Empty' for >> empty-string literals. >> > Wouldn't that be nice - from the little I understand of I.L.Code, the > compiler does come up with something a bit different in each case (not > surprisingly). > > Given ... > > If s1 = String.Empty Then > > ... the ILCode produced looks like: > > IL_0001: ldloc.0 > IL_0002: ldsfld string [mscorlib]System.String::Empty > IL_0007: ldc.i4.0 > IL_0008: call int32 [Microsoft.VisualBasic] > ...CompilerServices.StringType::StrCmp( string, string, bool ) > > But if you use the "old-fashioned" ... > > If s1 = "" Then > > ... the compiler produces this instead: > > IL_0001: ldloc.0 > IL_0002: ldstr "" > IL_0007: ldc.i4.0 > IL_0008: call int32 [Microsoft.VisualBasic] > ...CompilerServices.StringType::StrCmp( string, string, bool ) > > So does it really matter? > Is "ldstr" so much slower than "ldsfld" that "String.Empty" really is IMO no.> worth all the extra typing? > <advocate owner="devil" > IMO no.> Is String.Empty really so much more readible than ""? However, it's true that the 'ldsfld' instruction is slightly faster than the 'ldstr' instruction. I don't see any reason for the VB compiler not to emit 'ldsfld' + 'String.Empty' instead of 'ldstr' for "", as both are semantically equivalent and thus no problem could arise. -- M S Herfried K. Wagner M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/> V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/> >Is String.Empty really so much more readible than ""? More readable enough that it's worth the few extra keystrokes, yes. I personally don't get the near obsession some programmers have with saving a few keystrokes. As a percentage of all overall development, the time it takes to actually type the code is small. Besides, in most cases, you write the code once, but it's read dozens of time. So, even if you take three extra seconds to type a more explicit reference (be it String.Empty or anything else), you more than make up for the "investment" of the single write during the multiple reads. Is this a big deal? Not really. I happen to prefer String.Empty to "" because I believe the former to be a bit more clear and that's enough for me. What I find interesting, though, is that this discussion seems to paralel in a way the arguments of C# vs. VB.NET. C# people love that fact that they save a few keystrokes with their cryptic language. I prefer to type a bit extra and have my code more easilly understood by more people. Sure, if you know C#, then you know what weird combination of punctuation marks you have to create to get the functionality you need, but is this in-built obfuscation really worth the relatively small savings in keystrokes? I prefer VB.NET, so obviously I don't think so. To me, it's like driving ten miles out of your way to save a penny per gallon on gas. I'm not trying to start another C# vs. VB.NET holy flame war here. It's just that the principle of "" vs String.Empty reminded me of some of the same points, albeit on a much smaller scale. - Mitchell S. Honnert Show quoteHide quote "Phill W." <p-.-a-.-w-a-r-d@o-p-e-n-.-a-c-.-u-k> wrote in message news:e27spj$gjh$1@yarrow.open.ac.uk... > Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] wrote: >> "cj" <cj@nospam.nospam> schrieb: > . . . >>> mystring = "" has been around for ages now an is obvious beyond any >>> doubt to me so I surely don't think saying mystring = string.empty is >>> any better. >> >> Full ACK. I wonder why the VB compiler doesn't emit 'String.Empty' for >> empty-string literals. >> > Wouldn't that be nice - from the little I understand of I.L.Code, the > compiler does come up with something a bit different in each case (not > surprisingly). > > Given ... > > If s1 = String.Empty Then > > ... the ILCode produced looks like: > > IL_0001: ldloc.0 > IL_0002: ldsfld string [mscorlib]System.String::Empty > IL_0007: ldc.i4.0 > IL_0008: call int32 [Microsoft.VisualBasic] > ...CompilerServices.StringType::StrCmp( string, string, bool ) > > But if you use the "old-fashioned" ... > > If s1 = "" Then > > ... the compiler produces this instead: > > IL_0001: ldloc.0 > IL_0002: ldstr "" > IL_0007: ldc.i4.0 > IL_0008: call int32 [Microsoft.VisualBasic] > ...CompilerServices.StringType::StrCmp( string, string, bool ) > > So does it really matter? > Is "ldstr" so much slower than "ldsfld" that "String.Empty" really is > worth all the extra typing? > > <advocate owner="devil" > > Is String.Empty really so much more readible than ""? > > Regards, > Phill W. For me, nothing shouts empty string like "". It's the most obvious and
readable way of denoting an empty string. My use of it has nothing to do with typing extra keystrokes. I suspect some others feel the same way. And IMHO C# is not that different from VB any more. It's all getting more cryptic and it's all beginning to take more typing--hummm, worst of both worlds. But they're both doing more things now days like interfacing with more databases and with the web and all this makes things more complicated. Mitchell S. Honnert wrote: Show quoteHide quote >> Is String.Empty really so much more readible than ""? > More readable enough that it's worth the few extra keystrokes, yes. I > personally don't get the near obsession some programmers have with saving a > few keystrokes. As a percentage of all overall development, the time it > takes to actually type the code is small. Besides, in most cases, you write > the code once, but it's read dozens of time. So, even if you take three > extra seconds to type a more explicit reference (be it String.Empty or > anything else), you more than make up for the "investment" of the single > write during the multiple reads. > > Is this a big deal? Not really. I happen to prefer String.Empty to "" > because I believe the former to be a bit more clear and that's enough for > me. What I find interesting, though, is that this discussion seems to > paralel in a way the arguments of C# vs. VB.NET. C# people love that fact > that they save a few keystrokes with their cryptic language. I prefer to > type a bit extra and have my code more easilly understood by more people. > Sure, if you know C#, then you know what weird combination of punctuation > marks you have to create to get the functionality you need, but is this > in-built obfuscation really worth the relatively small savings in > keystrokes? I prefer VB.NET, so obviously I don't think so. To me, it's > like driving ten miles out of your way to save a penny per gallon on gas. > > I'm not trying to start another C# vs. VB.NET holy flame war here. It's just > that the principle of "" vs String.Empty reminded me of some of the same > points, albeit on a much smaller scale. > > - Mitchell S. Honnert > > "Phill W." <p-.-a-.-w-a-r-d@o-p-e-n-.-a-c-.-u-k> wrote in message > news:e27spj$gjh$1@yarrow.open.ac.uk... >> Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] wrote: >>> "cj" <cj@nospam.nospam> schrieb: >> . . . >>>> mystring = "" has been around for ages now an is obvious beyond any >>>> doubt to me so I surely don't think saying mystring = string.empty is >>>> any better. >>> Full ACK. I wonder why the VB compiler doesn't emit 'String.Empty' for >>> empty-string literals. >>> >> Wouldn't that be nice - from the little I understand of I.L.Code, the >> compiler does come up with something a bit different in each case (not >> surprisingly). >> >> Given ... >> >> If s1 = String.Empty Then >> >> ... the ILCode produced looks like: >> >> IL_0001: ldloc.0 >> IL_0002: ldsfld string [mscorlib]System.String::Empty >> IL_0007: ldc.i4.0 >> IL_0008: call int32 [Microsoft.VisualBasic] >> ...CompilerServices.StringType::StrCmp( string, string, bool ) >> >> But if you use the "old-fashioned" ... >> >> If s1 = "" Then >> >> ... the compiler produces this instead: >> >> IL_0001: ldloc.0 >> IL_0002: ldstr "" >> IL_0007: ldc.i4.0 >> IL_0008: call int32 [Microsoft.VisualBasic] >> ...CompilerServices.StringType::StrCmp( string, string, bool ) >> >> So does it really matter? >> Is "ldstr" so much slower than "ldsfld" that "String.Empty" really is >> worth all the extra typing? >> >> <advocate owner="devil" > >> Is String.Empty really so much more readible than ""? >> >> Regards, >> Phill W. > > > For me, nothing shouts empty string like "" What do these shout to you?"'' '"' ''" They all look like "", but they're not. Again, this issue is rather trivial, but it's enough to push me to use String.Empty. > And IMHO C# is not that different from VB any more. It's all getting more I personally don't think that VB is getting either more complex or cryptic. > cryptic and it's all beginning to take more typing--hummm, worst of both > worlds. But they're both doing more things now days like interfacing with > more databases and with the web and all this makes things more > complicated. Sure, it may have been difficult for VB6 developers to transition to VB.NET, but this isn't the proper measure of the complexity of a programming language. I've always contended that VB.NET would be much easier than VB6 to teach a person who is completely new to programming. VB.NET, along with the .NET Framework, may make VB *richer*, but because of the regularization of the language and the thought put into the design of the Framework, VB is actually less complex, not more. As for being cryptic, I don't think even C# people would deny that their language of choice is cryptic. (It's a point of pride.) Whereas VB will use a word or series of words, C# will use a punctuation mark or other single-character symbol. In other words, more cryptic. Bringing it back to our discussion, trying googling "" and see what you get. Now try "String.Empty". The reason that you will frequently see posts to the languages.csharp ng asking what this or that punctuation mark means is that the person either tried to google the punctuation mark and got a zillion result or didn't bother googling it in the first place because they knew they'd get a zillion results. Remember, eschew obfuscation. :-) - Mitchell S. Honnert Show quoteHide quote "cj" <cj@nospam.nospam> wrote in message news:%23T3rhwKZGHA.1016@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > For me, nothing shouts empty string like "". It's the most obvious and > readable way of denoting an empty string. My use of it has nothing to do > with typing extra keystrokes. I suspect some others feel the same way. > > And IMHO C# is not that different from VB any more. It's all getting more > cryptic and it's all beginning to take more typing--hummm, worst of both > worlds. But they're both doing more things now days like interfacing with > more databases and with the web and all this makes things more > complicated. > > > Mitchell S. Honnert wrote: >>> Is String.Empty really so much more readible than ""? >> More readable enough that it's worth the few extra keystrokes, yes. I >> personally don't get the near obsession some programmers have with saving >> a few keystrokes. As a percentage of all overall development, the time >> it takes to actually type the code is small. Besides, in most cases, you >> write the code once, but it's read dozens of time. So, even if you take >> three extra seconds to type a more explicit reference (be it String.Empty >> or anything else), you more than make up for the "investment" of the >> single write during the multiple reads. >> >> Is this a big deal? Not really. I happen to prefer String.Empty to "" >> because I believe the former to be a bit more clear and that's enough for >> me. What I find interesting, though, is that this discussion seems to >> paralel in a way the arguments of C# vs. VB.NET. C# people love that >> fact that they save a few keystrokes with their cryptic language. I >> prefer to type a bit extra and have my code more easilly understood by >> more people. Sure, if you know C#, then you know what weird combination >> of punctuation marks you have to create to get the functionality you >> need, but is this in-built obfuscation really worth the relatively small >> savings in keystrokes? I prefer VB.NET, so obviously I don't think so. >> To me, it's like driving ten miles out of your way to save a penny per >> gallon on gas. >> >> I'm not trying to start another C# vs. VB.NET holy flame war here. It's >> just that the principle of "" vs String.Empty reminded me of some of the >> same points, albeit on a much smaller scale. >> >> - Mitchell S. Honnert >> >> "Phill W." <p-.-a-.-w-a-r-d@o-p-e-n-.-a-c-.-u-k> wrote in message >> news:e27spj$gjh$1@yarrow.open.ac.uk... >>> Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] wrote: >>>> "cj" <cj@nospam.nospam> schrieb: >>> . . . >>>>> mystring = "" has been around for ages now an is obvious beyond any >>>>> doubt to me so I surely don't think saying mystring = string.empty is >>>>> any better. >>>> Full ACK. I wonder why the VB compiler doesn't emit 'String.Empty' for >>>> empty-string literals. >>>> >>> Wouldn't that be nice - from the little I understand of I.L.Code, the >>> compiler does come up with something a bit different in each case (not >>> surprisingly). >>> >>> Given ... >>> >>> If s1 = String.Empty Then >>> >>> ... the ILCode produced looks like: >>> >>> IL_0001: ldloc.0 >>> IL_0002: ldsfld string [mscorlib]System.String::Empty >>> IL_0007: ldc.i4.0 >>> IL_0008: call int32 [Microsoft.VisualBasic] >>> ...CompilerServices.StringType::StrCmp( string, string, bool ) >>> >>> But if you use the "old-fashioned" ... >>> >>> If s1 = "" Then >>> >>> ... the compiler produces this instead: >>> >>> IL_0001: ldloc.0 >>> IL_0002: ldstr "" >>> IL_0007: ldc.i4.0 >>> IL_0008: call int32 [Microsoft.VisualBasic] >>> ...CompilerServices.StringType::StrCmp( string, string, bool ) >>> >>> So does it really matter? >>> Is "ldstr" so much slower than "ldsfld" that "String.Empty" really is >>> worth all the extra typing? >>> >>> <advocate owner="devil" > >>> Is String.Empty really so much more readible than ""? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Phill W. >> Mitchell,
Simple question, What do you do if you have to set a single quote in a string. "'" you have than in my idea the same problem. Therefore I think that your solution is strict personal. Nothing wrong with it, that is what makes VBNet a better "language". You are not hold to one word, just like any other true language beside AFAIK languages as Latin. Just my thought, Cor Show quoteHide quote "Mitchell S. Honnert" <n***@REMhonnertOVE.com> schreef in bericht news:OAaKb$LZGHA.1180@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> For me, nothing shouts empty string like "" > What do these shout to you? > "'' > '"' > ''" > > They all look like "", but they're not. Again, this issue is rather > trivial, but it's enough to push me to use String.Empty. > >> And IMHO C# is not that different from VB any more. It's all getting >> more cryptic and it's all beginning to take more typing--hummm, worst of >> both worlds. But they're both doing more things now days like interfacing >> with more databases and with the web and all this makes things more >> complicated. > I personally don't think that VB is getting either more complex or > cryptic. Sure, it may have been difficult for VB6 developers to transition > to VB.NET, but this isn't the proper measure of the complexity of a > programming language. I've always contended that VB.NET would be much > easier than VB6 to teach a person who is completely new to programming. > VB.NET, along with the .NET Framework, may make VB *richer*, but because > of the regularization of the language and the thought put into the design > of the Framework, VB is actually less complex, not more. > > As for being cryptic, I don't think even C# people would deny that their > language of choice is cryptic. (It's a point of pride.) Whereas VB will > use a word or series of words, C# will use a punctuation mark or other > single-character symbol. In other words, more cryptic. Bringing it back > to our discussion, trying googling "" and see what you get. Now try > "String.Empty". The reason that you will frequently see posts to the > languages.csharp ng asking what this or that punctuation mark means is > that the person either tried to google the punctuation mark and got a > zillion result or didn't bother googling it in the first place because > they knew they'd get a zillion results. > > Remember, eschew obfuscation. :-) > > - Mitchell S. Honnert > > > "cj" <cj@nospam.nospam> wrote in message > news:%23T3rhwKZGHA.1016@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> For me, nothing shouts empty string like "". It's the most obvious and >> readable way of denoting an empty string. My use of it has nothing to do >> with typing extra keystrokes. I suspect some others feel the same way. >> >> And IMHO C# is not that different from VB any more. It's all getting >> more cryptic and it's all beginning to take more typing--hummm, worst of >> both worlds. But they're both doing more things now days like interfacing >> with more databases and with the web and all this makes things more >> complicated. >> >> >> Mitchell S. Honnert wrote: >>>> Is String.Empty really so much more readible than ""? >>> More readable enough that it's worth the few extra keystrokes, yes. I >>> personally don't get the near obsession some programmers have with >>> saving a few keystrokes. As a percentage of all overall development, >>> the time it takes to actually type the code is small. Besides, in most >>> cases, you write the code once, but it's read dozens of time. So, even >>> if you take three extra seconds to type a more explicit reference (be it >>> String.Empty or anything else), you more than make up for the >>> "investment" of the single write during the multiple reads. >>> >>> Is this a big deal? Not really. I happen to prefer String.Empty to "" >>> because I believe the former to be a bit more clear and that's enough >>> for me. What I find interesting, though, is that this discussion seems >>> to paralel in a way the arguments of C# vs. VB.NET. C# people love that >>> fact that they save a few keystrokes with their cryptic language. I >>> prefer to type a bit extra and have my code more easilly understood by >>> more people. Sure, if you know C#, then you know what weird combination >>> of punctuation marks you have to create to get the functionality you >>> need, but is this in-built obfuscation really worth the relatively small >>> savings in keystrokes? I prefer VB.NET, so obviously I don't think so. >>> To me, it's like driving ten miles out of your way to save a penny per >>> gallon on gas. >>> >>> I'm not trying to start another C# vs. VB.NET holy flame war here. It's >>> just that the principle of "" vs String.Empty reminded me of some of the >>> same points, albeit on a much smaller scale. >>> >>> - Mitchell S. Honnert >>> >>> "Phill W." <p-.-a-.-w-a-r-d@o-p-e-n-.-a-c-.-u-k> wrote in message >>> news:e27spj$gjh$1@yarrow.open.ac.uk... >>>> Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] wrote: >>>>> "cj" <cj@nospam.nospam> schrieb: >>>> . . . >>>>>> mystring = "" has been around for ages now an is obvious beyond any >>>>>> doubt to me so I surely don't think saying mystring = string.empty is >>>>>> any better. >>>>> Full ACK. I wonder why the VB compiler doesn't emit 'String.Empty' >>>>> for empty-string literals. >>>>> >>>> Wouldn't that be nice - from the little I understand of I.L.Code, the >>>> compiler does come up with something a bit different in each case (not >>>> surprisingly). >>>> >>>> Given ... >>>> >>>> If s1 = String.Empty Then >>>> >>>> ... the ILCode produced looks like: >>>> >>>> IL_0001: ldloc.0 >>>> IL_0002: ldsfld string [mscorlib]System.String::Empty >>>> IL_0007: ldc.i4.0 >>>> IL_0008: call int32 [Microsoft.VisualBasic] >>>> ...CompilerServices.StringType::StrCmp( string, string, bool ) >>>> >>>> But if you use the "old-fashioned" ... >>>> >>>> If s1 = "" Then >>>> >>>> ... the compiler produces this instead: >>>> >>>> IL_0001: ldloc.0 >>>> IL_0002: ldstr "" >>>> IL_0007: ldc.i4.0 >>>> IL_0008: call int32 [Microsoft.VisualBasic] >>>> ...CompilerServices.StringType::StrCmp( string, string, bool ) >>>> >>>> So does it really matter? >>>> Is "ldstr" so much slower than "ldsfld" that "String.Empty" really is >>>> worth all the extra typing? >>>> >>>> <advocate owner="devil" > >>>> Is String.Empty really so much more readible than ""? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Phill W. >>> > >Therefore I think that your solution is strict personal. I believe that what you are saying is that the use of String.Empty is a personal preference for me? If so, you're exactly right. I have some objective justification for my use of String.Empty, but nothing so important that it can't be reasonably overridden by personal preference. - Mitchell S. Honnert Show quoteHide quote "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message news:OerAN4QZGHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > Mitchell, > > Simple question, What do you do if you have to set a single quote in a > string. > > "'" you have than in my idea the same problem. Therefore I think that your > solution is strict personal. Nothing wrong with it, that is what makes > VBNet a better "language". You are not hold to one word, just like any > other true language beside AFAIK languages as Latin. > > Just my thought, > > Cor > > "Mitchell S. Honnert" <n***@REMhonnertOVE.com> schreef in bericht > news:OAaKb$LZGHA.1180@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>> For me, nothing shouts empty string like "" >> What do these shout to you? >> "'' >> '"' >> ''" >> >> They all look like "", but they're not. Again, this issue is rather >> trivial, but it's enough to push me to use String.Empty. >> >>> And IMHO C# is not that different from VB any more. It's all getting >>> more cryptic and it's all beginning to take more typing--hummm, worst of >>> both worlds. But they're both doing more things now days like >>> interfacing with more databases and with the web and all this makes >>> things more complicated. >> I personally don't think that VB is getting either more complex or >> cryptic. Sure, it may have been difficult for VB6 developers to >> transition to VB.NET, but this isn't the proper measure of the complexity >> of a programming language. I've always contended that VB.NET would be >> much easier than VB6 to teach a person who is completely new to >> programming. VB.NET, along with the .NET Framework, may make VB *richer*, >> but because of the regularization of the language and the thought put >> into the design of the Framework, VB is actually less complex, not more. >> >> As for being cryptic, I don't think even C# people would deny that their >> language of choice is cryptic. (It's a point of pride.) Whereas VB will >> use a word or series of words, C# will use a punctuation mark or other >> single-character symbol. In other words, more cryptic. Bringing it back >> to our discussion, trying googling "" and see what you get. Now try >> "String.Empty". The reason that you will frequently see posts to the >> languages.csharp ng asking what this or that punctuation mark means is >> that the person either tried to google the punctuation mark and got a >> zillion result or didn't bother googling it in the first place because >> they knew they'd get a zillion results. >> >> Remember, eschew obfuscation. :-) >> >> - Mitchell S. Honnert >> >> >> "cj" <cj@nospam.nospam> wrote in message >> news:%23T3rhwKZGHA.1016@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>> For me, nothing shouts empty string like "". It's the most obvious and >>> readable way of denoting an empty string. My use of it has nothing to >>> do with typing extra keystrokes. I suspect some others feel the same >>> way. >>> >>> And IMHO C# is not that different from VB any more. It's all getting >>> more cryptic and it's all beginning to take more typing--hummm, worst of >>> both worlds. But they're both doing more things now days like >>> interfacing with more databases and with the web and all this makes >>> things more complicated. >>> >>> >>> Mitchell S. Honnert wrote: >>>>> Is String.Empty really so much more readible than ""? >>>> More readable enough that it's worth the few extra keystrokes, yes. I >>>> personally don't get the near obsession some programmers have with >>>> saving a few keystrokes. As a percentage of all overall development, >>>> the time it takes to actually type the code is small. Besides, in most >>>> cases, you write the code once, but it's read dozens of time. So, even >>>> if you take three extra seconds to type a more explicit reference (be >>>> it String.Empty or anything else), you more than make up for the >>>> "investment" of the single write during the multiple reads. >>>> >>>> Is this a big deal? Not really. I happen to prefer String.Empty to "" >>>> because I believe the former to be a bit more clear and that's enough >>>> for me. What I find interesting, though, is that this discussion seems >>>> to paralel in a way the arguments of C# vs. VB.NET. C# people love >>>> that fact that they save a few keystrokes with their cryptic language. >>>> I prefer to type a bit extra and have my code more easilly understood >>>> by more people. Sure, if you know C#, then you know what weird >>>> combination of punctuation marks you have to create to get the >>>> functionality you need, but is this in-built obfuscation really worth >>>> the relatively small savings in keystrokes? I prefer VB.NET, so >>>> obviously I don't think so. To me, it's like driving ten miles out of >>>> your way to save a penny per gallon on gas. >>>> >>>> I'm not trying to start another C# vs. VB.NET holy flame war here. It's >>>> just that the principle of "" vs String.Empty reminded me of some of >>>> the same points, albeit on a much smaller scale. >>>> >>>> - Mitchell S. Honnert >>>> >>>> "Phill W." <p-.-a-.-w-a-r-d@o-p-e-n-.-a-c-.-u-k> wrote in message >>>> news:e27spj$gjh$1@yarrow.open.ac.uk... >>>>> Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] wrote: >>>>>> "cj" <cj@nospam.nospam> schrieb: >>>>> . . . >>>>>>> mystring = "" has been around for ages now an is obvious beyond any >>>>>>> doubt to me so I surely don't think saying mystring = string.empty >>>>>>> is any better. >>>>>> Full ACK. I wonder why the VB compiler doesn't emit 'String.Empty' >>>>>> for empty-string literals. >>>>>> >>>>> Wouldn't that be nice - from the little I understand of I.L.Code, the >>>>> compiler does come up with something a bit different in each case (not >>>>> surprisingly). >>>>> >>>>> Given ... >>>>> >>>>> If s1 = String.Empty Then >>>>> >>>>> ... the ILCode produced looks like: >>>>> >>>>> IL_0001: ldloc.0 >>>>> IL_0002: ldsfld string [mscorlib]System.String::Empty >>>>> IL_0007: ldc.i4.0 >>>>> IL_0008: call int32 [Microsoft.VisualBasic] >>>>> ...CompilerServices.StringType::StrCmp( string, string, bool ) >>>>> >>>>> But if you use the "old-fashioned" ... >>>>> >>>>> If s1 = "" Then >>>>> >>>>> ... the compiler produces this instead: >>>>> >>>>> IL_0001: ldloc.0 >>>>> IL_0002: ldstr "" >>>>> IL_0007: ldc.i4.0 >>>>> IL_0008: call int32 [Microsoft.VisualBasic] >>>>> ...CompilerServices.StringType::StrCmp( string, string, bool ) >>>>> >>>>> So does it really matter? >>>>> Is "ldstr" so much slower than "ldsfld" that "String.Empty" really is >>>>> worth all the extra typing? >>>>> >>>>> <advocate owner="devil" > >>>>> Is String.Empty really so much more readible than ""? >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Phill W. >>>> >> > > "Mitchell S. Honnert" <n***@REMhonnertOVE.com> schrieb: Mhm... There is a clear difference between them when shown in VS' standard >> For me, nothing shouts empty string like "" > What do these shout to you? > "'' > '"' > ''" > > They all look like "", but they're not. Again, this issue is rather > trivial, but it's enough to push me to use String.Empty. text-editor font... I don't see such a huge problem that would cause me not to use "" any more. Just my 2 Euro cents... -- M S Herfried K. Wagner M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/> V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/> 
Other interesting topics
Rnd() vs. Long ...no joy with LSB!
FTP with SSL SQL Connection help needed difference between cstr vs .ToString vs Ctype Visual Studio 2005 Outlook 2000 making 600 dpi A3 size images How to prevent "Input string was not in a correct format" in DataGridView button with drop down how to extract icon (or resource) ? Printing rotated text |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
