C# Static Class with Resharper Recommendations

Question

My first time posting! Long time lurker.

I'm creating a static class, and this answer was very helpful: C# - Winforms - Global Variables

Here's the code from that answer for clarity:

static class Global
  {
    private static string _globalVar = "";

    public static string GlobalVar
    {
        get { return _globalVar; }
        set { _globalVar = value; }
    }
  }

However, in the process, ReSharper has recommended the code changes to this:

public static string value1 { get; set; } = "";

public static string value2 { get; set; } = "";

I don't think there's any difference, but I want to be 100% certain.

So my question is, is there any difference between the two, and if so, which one is the most desirable?

The primary difference is that you don't have access to the backing field that's created inside of the class. Also you should add the original code from the other question to be more clear what difference you're talking about. — juharr, Oct 04 '18 at 11:15
@Greg: it's good practice to include it in the question itself. Links can die, and besides; it is annoying ;-) — Stefan, Oct 04 '18 at 11:17
@Greg I'm glad that link I need to check is not contains other links. — SᴇM, Oct 04 '18 at 11:18
So you ask what's the difference between using properties with and without a backing field? — Tim Schmelter, Oct 04 '18 at 11:20
@Stefan, sure it is good practice. I was just showing SeM the answer to "between which two" :-) — eye_am_groot, Oct 04 '18 at 11:21
Sorry, first time posting so still getting used to the best practice! Have added the code from the link for clarity. Also didn't realise it had already been answered elsewhere, apologies. — PoweredByDoritos, Oct 04 '18 at 11:23
@PoweredByDoritos: no worries. We all have been there.... I still am ;-) — Stefan, Oct 04 '18 at 11:24
@Greg, that was a kind of question that I know the answer, but I wanted to make OP to think about readability of his question. — SᴇM, Oct 04 '18 at 11:24
@SeM ahh. I didn't understand! Sorry for the confusion I've caused — eye_am_groot, Oct 04 '18 at 11:25
@SeM Appreciate the lesson, thank you :) Noted for any future questions! — PoweredByDoritos, Oct 04 '18 at 11:25

score 2 · Accepted Answer · answered Oct 04 '18 at 11:17

That's "syntactic sugar". The version

public static string value1 {get;set;} = "";

compiles almost exaclty the way the previous explicit version

private static string _value1 = "";
public static string value1 {
    get { return _value1; }
    set { _value1 = value; }
}

would compile. The compiler creates the backing field for you and initializes it.

So if you don't need to do special things in the getter or setter method, I'd prefer the shorter version (the so called auto-property), because there is less boiler-plate code.

Cool, I thought it was just boiler-plate tidy, but wanted to double check it didn't affect the functionality in any way that I was glossing over! Thank you. Will mark as answer as soon as I can. — PoweredByDoritos, Oct 04 '18 at 11:20

C# Static Class with Resharper Recommendations

1 Answers1