Should I use string constants or string literals

Question

By default I use string constants in my code when I have a string of text that will be output to the screen via a messagebox, label, etc. My main reason for doing so is that I do not want these strings to change at runtime and this way nobody really touches them.

My question is:

It seems that from a memory point of view, this approach is creating an object whose lifetime will be decided by the GB whereas a string literal seems more efficient and will be disposed of more quickly. I know this is a rookie question but is there a benefit (no matter how tiny) when using a literal over a constant or should a constant be used in such scenarios.

I know it will not make any noticeable difference in my apps but I am trying to improve myself as a dev and build standards that I keep a reasonable amount of the time. :o)

Maybe my English isn't good enough but what is the difference between a "string constant" and a "string literal". Aren't they the same? — Remko Jansen
– Remko Jansen, Commented Jul 22, 2009 at 15:53
a string literal is the part between the quotes ("foo"). A constant is when you assign a literal to a name (const string FOO = "foo"). I think when Jason says literal he means using the literal inline (MessageBox.Show("foo")). — Rob Fonseca-Ensor
– Rob Fonseca-Ensor, Commented Jul 22, 2009 at 15:58

Otávio Décio · Accepted Answer · 2009-07-22 15:50:38Z

15

Neither. The recommended way AFAIK is to use a resources file.

answered Jul 22, 2009 at 15:50

Otávio Décio

74.6k18 gold badges167 silver badges230 bronze badges

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

2 Comments

Simon P Stevens Over a year ago

I agree. Forget literals and constants. Definitely use a resource file. That way the strings are kept externally and are language independent.

Chris Cooper Over a year ago

Depending, of course, on the context. No need to SOFT_CODE: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softcoding =)

Bill the Lizard · Accepted Answer · 2009-07-22 15:53:28Z

5

Prefer string constants to string literals, but the reason is to make your code more maintainable, not to improve its performance.

answered Jul 22, 2009 at 15:53

Bill the Lizard

407k213 gold badges579 silver badges892 bronze badges

3 Comments

JohnFx Over a year ago

Amen. Maintainability will pay off ten times more than a micro-optimization like the one proposed by the OP.

Mehdi Charife Over a year ago

@BilltheLizard How is using string constants more maintanable than string literals?

Bill the Lizard Over a year ago

@MehdiCharife The same way using any constant is more maintainable than using literal values. The more copies of the same literal value you have in your code, the more places you have to change it when the value needs to change. If you define a constant instead, you only have to change it in one place.

Rob Fonseca-Ensor · Accepted Answer · 2009-07-22 15:54:57Z

3

You should look into "string interning". Basically, all of the unique string literals (constant or inline) in any of your source files will be stored in a special table. They will never be garbage collected, and may benefit from re-use.

You might want to look into using a resources file if you will ever be changing those strings without wanting to recompile (eg for internationalisation)

answered Jul 22, 2009 at 15:54

Rob Fonseca-Ensor

15.6k1 gold badge47 silver badges57 bronze badges

2 Comments

Rob Fonseca-Ensor Over a year ago

the upshot of string interning is that you should do whatever is most maintainable

Sprague Over a year ago

I believe string interning is a default in C# in 4.0. I think it's also the case that the compiler inserts literals into the code in the place of constants (and enums). This means that separating the constant from it's implementation can cause versioning issues. Agree with Rob above that you should do what's most maintainable- but don't limit that statement to string interning.

p.campbell · Accepted Answer · 2009-07-22 15:58:36Z

2

For internationalization purposes, it's true that the accepted best practice/recommendation is a set of resource files.

I am following the same pattern of using string constants in their own class. I find it's easier to create consts that'll be used on multiple pages throughout the web app. Even a const with placeholders helps!

  //{1} for the user's full name for example
const string SOME_LABEL = "Thanks for purchasing {0} products, {1}!";

answered Jul 22, 2009 at 15:58

p.campbell

101k70 gold badges264 silver badges326 bronze badges

Comments

jrista · Accepted Answer · 2009-07-22 15:55:23Z

1

It would depend on whether you need these strings to be localizable or not. If you need the ability to translate your software into other languages, then I would place as many strings that are displayed to an end user as you can in resource files. If you do not need localization, or if the strings in question are never displayed to an end user, I would use constants. If your strings are shared amongst multiple classes, I would create classes that wrap up common strings that are provided as public constants. Unless these strings need to be used outside of the assembly they are defined in, keep them at the lowest privilege level possible (private, protected, internal).

answered Jul 22, 2009 at 15:55

jrista

33.2k15 gold badges93 silver badges132 bronze badges

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

Should I use string constants or string literals

5 Answers 5

2 Comments

3 Comments

2 Comments

Comments

Comments

Your Answer

Linked

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

5 Answers 5

2 Comments

3 Comments

2 Comments

Comments

Comments

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Linked

Related