The keyword string has concrete meaning in C#. It is the type System.String which exists in the core runtime assembly. The runtime intrinsictly understands this type and provides the capabilities developers expect for strings in .NET. Its presence is so critical to C# that if that type doesn’t exist the compiler will exit before attempting to even parse a line of code. Hence string has a precise, unambiguous meaning in C# code.

class TricksterString { 
  void Example() {
    String s = "Hello World"; // Okay but probably not what you expect.
  }
}

class String {
  public static implicit operator String(string s) => null;
}

The actual meaning of String will always depend on name resolution. That means it depends on all the source files in the project and all the types defined in all the referenced assemblies. In short it requires quite a bit of context to know what it means.

True that in the vast majority of cases String and string will bind to the same type. But using String still means developers are leaving their program up to interpretation in places where there is only one correct answer. When String does bind to the wrong type it can leave developers debugging for hours, filing bugs on the compiler team and generally wasting time that could’ve been saved by using string.

Another way to visualize the difference is with this sample:

string s1 = 42; // Errors 100% of the time  
String s2 = 42; // Might error, might not, depends on the code

Many will argue that while this is information technically accurate using String is still fine because it’s exceedingly rare that a code base would define a type of this name. Or that when String is defined it’s a sign of a bad code base.

So remember when you see the String vs. string debate this is about semantics, not style. Choosing string gives crisp meaning to your code base. Choosing String isn’t wrong but it’s leaving the door open for surprises in the future.

Note: I copy/pasted most of the blog post for archive reason. I ignore some parts, so I recommend to skip and to read the blog post if you can.

The keyword string has concrete meaning in C#. It is the type System.String which exists in the core runtime assembly. The runtime intrinsically understands this type and provides the capabilities developers expect for strings in .NET. Its presence is so critical to C# that if that type doesn’t exist the compiler will exit before attempting to even parse a line of code. Hence string has a precise, unambiguous meaning in C# code.

class TricksterString { 
  void Example() {
    String s = "Hello World"; // Okay but probably not what you expect.
  }
}

class String {
  public static implicit operator String(string s) => null;
}

The actual meaning of String will always depend on name resolution. That means it depends on all the source files in the project and all the types defined in all the referenced assemblies. In short it requires quite a bit of context to know what it means.

True that in the vast majority of cases String and string will bind to the same type. But using String still means developers are leaving their program up to interpretation in places where there is only one correct answer. When String does bind to the wrong type it can leave developers debugging for hours, filing bugs on the compiler team, and generally wasting time that could’ve been saved by using string.

Another way to visualize the difference is with this sample:

string s1 = 42; // Errors 100% of the time  
String s2 = 42; // Might error, might not, depends on the code

Many will argue that while this is information technically accurate using String is still fine because it’s exceedingly rare that a codebase would define a type of this name. Or that when String is defined it’s a sign of a bad codebase.

So remember when you see the String vs. string debate this is about semantics, not style. Choosing string gives crisp meaning to your codebase. Choosing String isn’t wrong but it’s leaving the door open for surprises in the future.

Note: I copy/pasted most of the blog posts for archive reasons. I ignore some parts, so I recommend skipping and reading the blog post if you can.

class TricksterString { 
  void Example() {
    String s = "Hello World"; // Okay but probably not what you expect.
  }
}

class String {
  public static implicit operator String(string s) => null;
}

The actual meaning of String will always depend on name resolution. That means it depends on all the source files in the project and all the types defined in all the referenced assemblies. In short it requires quite a bit of context to know what it means.

True that in the vast majority of cases String and string will bind to the same type. But using String still means developers are leaving their program up to interpretation in places where there is only one correct answer. When String does bind to the wrong type it can leave developers debugging for hours, filing bugs on the compiler team and generally wasting time that could’ve been saved by using string.

Another way to visualize the difference is with this sample:

string s1 = 42; // Errors 100% of the time  String s2 = 42; // Might
 error, might not, depends on the code

 

Many will argue that while this is information technically accurate using String is still fine because it’s exceedingly rare that a code base would define a type of this name. Or that when String is defined it’s a sign of a bad code base.

class TricksterString { 
  void Example() {
    String s = "Hello World"; // Okay but probably not what you expect.
  }
}

class String {
  public static implicit operator String(string s) => null;
}

The actual meaning of String will always depend on name resolution. That means it depends on all the source files in the project and all the types defined in all the referenced assemblies. In short it requires quite a bit of context to know what it means.

True that in the vast majority of cases String and string will bind to the same type. But using String still means developers are leaving their program up to interpretation in places where there is only one correct answer. When String does bind to the wrong type it can leave developers debugging for hours, filing bugs on the compiler team and generally wasting time that could’ve been saved by using string.

Another way to visualize the difference is with this sample:

string s1 = 42; // Errors 100% of the time   
String s2 = 42; // Might error, might not, depends on the code

Many will argue that while this is information technically accurate using String is still fine because it’s exceedingly rare that a code base would define a type of this name. Or that when String is defined it’s a sign of a bad code base.

@JaredPar (a developer on the C# compiler and prolific SO user!) wrote a great blog post on this issue. I think it is worth sharing here.

@JaredPar (a developer on the C# compiler and prolific SO user!) wrote a great blog post on this issue. I think it is worth sharing here. It is a nice perspective on our subject.

string vs. String is not a style debate

[...]