Skip to main content

Understanding Generics in C#

We have begun introducing generics into all of our code at work and I have found it difficult to understand, lots of 's and this sort of thing and when you multiply that across all of the project I have decided I need to get a grip on generics in C#.

My port of call was the Microsoft MSDN website, and that is what I am looking at now allthough I have 2 books as well, Beginning C# 2005 (Wrox Press) and C# In depth (Skeet).

My first question was what is the benefits of generics, I managed to survive without them before. Luckily one of the articles on the MSDN website answers this directly http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/b5bx6xee.aspx

Obviously this article doesn't answer all of the questions it just addresses using list over arraylist however it is a start. What I hadn't realised was that when you use an arraylist is casts everything you add to the array into the object type which is both performance hungry and also allows you to run the chance of a run time error.

For example the website uses

System.Collections.ArrayList list = new System.Collections.ArrayList();
// Add an integer to the list.
list.Add(3);
// Add a string to the list. This will compile, but may cause an error later.
list.Add("It is raining in Redmond.");
int t = 0;
// This causes an InvalidCastException to be returned.
foreach (int x in list){ t += x;}

Here you would not want to be mixing to different types but if you used a generic list instead the error would have been flagged up immediately.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Accessing the UI Thread with Tasks in F#

I have a Windows Forms program written in F# that can deploy a code base to n number of sites at once (you select the sites you would like to deploy to and it goes off and completes a number of tasks (backing up current sites, various unpacking and moving of files etc... ). Once you start it, it begins it's merry journey and begins to update the UI with what has happened. At the moment this method of updating the UI is not pretty because the threads I am doing the work on can't update the UI so I perform some fiendery to make that happen (don't ask). I knew there was a better way using some newer .NET features but I just hadn't got round to having a fiddle yet. I have now found that if you use the built in Task class but break your code up in a nicer way and then chain the tasks together you can then pass the correct context into the task that you want to talk to the UI. Here's a little script to give you a feel for it. You can press the "start" butt

An instantiated object should be "ok"

I've been QA'ing quite a bit of work recently and one common theme I've noticed across both Java and C# projects I have been looking at is that we occasionally open ourselves up unessacarily to Exceptions by the way objects are being created. My general rule of thumb (which I have seen mentioned in a Pluralsight video recently but also always re-iterate in various Robust Software talks I have done) is that you shouldn't be able to create an object and then call a method or access a property that then throws an exception. At worst, it should return null (I'm not going to moan about that now). I've created an example below. We have two Dojos, one is good and one is bad. The bad dojo looks very familiar though. It's a little class written in the style that seems often encouraged. In fact, many classes start life as something like this. Then as years go on, you and other colleagues add more features to the class and it's instantiation becomes a second

NESTA - Next Gen.

via nesta.org.uk Following on from an article on the BBC about Raspberry Pi, this next gen report has some interesting findings. The scariest stat which I picked out from the BBC website was "out of the 28,767 teachers who were awarded Qualified Teacher Status... in 2010, only three qualified in computing or computing science as their primary qualification" Having worked as a computer science teacher for a year in a school that was a specialist in Computing I can concur that the uptake in Comp Sci was woeful. 2 Students for A2... The other teachers backgrounds in Computer Science was also fairly woeful (most knowing a bit about Office but still a paltry amount even about that). I couldn't speak for my counterpart that I was covering however. I suspect they were fairly up on things. All in all what kills me is that Computer science is not a secondary level subject. Areas are often covered, a little in IT, a little in DT subjects (if kids choose Systems and Contr