CStr() vs. .ToString()

**Scott M.** · Feb 18 '06, 05:55 PM

Re: CStr() vs. .ToString()

IMHO (and this has been debated for quite some time now), you should view
all of the old "data-type" specific functions as legacy functions and no
longer use them. Instead, use the more object-oriented methods of a type.

CStr, CBool, CDbl, CInt, etc. would all be replaced with CType or .ToString
All date/time functions would be replaced with methods and properties of the
Date class
All string functions would be replaced with methods and properties of the
String class.

et all.

"Sean" <Sean@discussio ns.microsoft.co m> wrote in message
news:68FBFD12-1AF2-4F12-821F-2CC4E6F8E957@mi crosoft.com...[color=blue]
> Book I am reading says that Cstr() is best method for efficency and safety
> however it doesnt compare that method of the .ToString() method.
>
> Which is best.
>
> Thanks
>
>[/color]

**guy** · Feb 18 '06, 06:45 PM

Re: CStr() vs. .ToString()

both points of view are valid, however i use the vb string methods as the
compiler makes optimzations that can improve performance over the native .Net
methods, also i find the vb methods read better.

cheers

guy

"Scott M." wrote:
[color=blue]
> IMHO (and this has been debated for quite some time now), you should view
> all of the old "data-type" specific functions as legacy functions and no
> longer use them. Instead, use the more object-oriented methods of a type.
>
> CStr, CBool, CDbl, CInt, etc. would all be replaced with CType or .ToString
> All date/time functions would be replaced with methods and properties of the
> Date class
> All string functions would be replaced with methods and properties of the
> String class.
>
> et all.
>
>
> "Sean" <Sean@discussio ns.microsoft.co m> wrote in message
> news:68FBFD12-1AF2-4F12-821F-2CC4E6F8E957@mi crosoft.com...[color=green]
> > Book I am reading says that Cstr() is best method for efficency and safety
> > however it doesnt compare that method of the .ToString() method.
> >
> > Which is best.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >[/color]
>
>
>[/color]

**Sean** · Feb 18 '06, 08:45 PM

Re: CStr() vs. .ToString()

for my clarification
..ToString() = native .Net methods
CStr() = vb String methods?

from my understanding in the book I am reading Cstr() etc is the perfered
way however it doesnt address .ToString()

"guy" wrote:
[color=blue]
> both points of view are valid, however i use the vb string methods as the
> compiler makes optimzations that can improve performance over the native .Net
> methods, also i find the vb methods read better.
>
> cheers
>
> guy
>
> "Scott M." wrote:
>[color=green]
> > IMHO (and this has been debated for quite some time now), you should view
> > all of the old "data-type" specific functions as legacy functions and no
> > longer use them. Instead, use the more object-oriented methods of a type.
> >
> > CStr, CBool, CDbl, CInt, etc. would all be replaced with CType or .ToString
> > All date/time functions would be replaced with methods and properties of the
> > Date class
> > All string functions would be replaced with methods and properties of the
> > String class.
> >
> > et all.
> >
> >
> > "Sean" <Sean@discussio ns.microsoft.co m> wrote in message
> > news:68FBFD12-1AF2-4F12-821F-2CC4E6F8E957@mi crosoft.com...[color=darkred]
> > > Book I am reading says that Cstr() is best method for efficency and safety
> > > however it doesnt compare that method of the .ToString() method.
> > >
> > > Which is best.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > >[/color]
> >
> >
> >[/color][/color]

**Scott M.** · Feb 18 '06, 10:15 PM

Re: CStr() vs. .ToString()

"guy" <guy@discussion s.microsoft.com > wrote in message
news:2199BA10-0B41-4D7D-B7AF-F34D469457BD@mi crosoft.com...[color=blue]
> both points of view are valid, however i use the vb string methods as the
> compiler makes optimzations that can improve performance over the native
> .Net
> methods, also i find the vb methods read better.[/color]

The VB 6.0 way are not methods, they are functions. The .NET way are object
methods. The VB.NET compiler does NOT optimize the VB 6.0 functions to work
BETTER than the natvie .NET object methods.

To answer your question, ToString would be my suggestion, rather than
CStr(). ToString is a method of the Object Type, and since all classes
inherit from Object, all objects have this method.

[color=blue]
>
> cheers
>
> guy
>
> "Scott M." wrote:
>[color=green]
>> IMHO (and this has been debated for quite some time now), you should view
>> all of the old "data-type" specific functions as legacy functions and no
>> longer use them. Instead, use the more object-oriented methods of a
>> type.
>>
>> CStr, CBool, CDbl, CInt, etc. would all be replaced with CType or
>> .ToString
>> All date/time functions would be replaced with methods and properties of
>> the
>> Date class
>> All string functions would be replaced with methods and properties of the
>> String class.
>>
>> et all.
>>
>>
>> "Sean" <Sean@discussio ns.microsoft.co m> wrote in message
>> news:68FBFD12-1AF2-4F12-821F-2CC4E6F8E957@mi crosoft.com...[color=darkred]
>> > Book I am reading says that Cstr() is best method for efficency and
>> > safety
>> > however it doesnt compare that method of the .ToString() method.
>> >
>> > Which is best.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> >[/color]
>>
>>
>>[/color][/color]

**CMM** · Feb 18 '06, 10:25 PM

Re: CStr() vs. .ToString()

I don't think that's true at all. First off, CStr,CBool, Etc. are all just
easier-to-read specialized wrappers around CType..... which in and of itself
is a special "VB" construct. The true "non-VB" casting operator is
DirectCast(...) .

Contrary to what Scott M says you're SUPPOSED to use them. What's the point
of using VB if you're not going to use its special methods that make your
life easier? This is straight from the VB documentation:

"As a rule, you should use the Visual Basic type conversion functions in
preference to the .NET Framework methods such as ToString(), either on the
Convert class or on an individual type structure or class. The Visual Basic
functions are designed for optimal interaction with Visual Basic code, and
they also make your source code shorter and easier to read. In addition, the
..NET Framework conversion methods do not always produce the same results as
the Visual Basic functions, for example when converting Boolean to Integer.
For more information, see Troubleshooting Data Types."

In addition, although I'm a guy who always initializes strings and objects
as soon as possible rather than have them sit around until my algorithm uses
them- so I don't really care about the following- but, there's an advantage
to using VB's functions: they interpret "Nothing." You can't use the OO
methods on a string that is "Nothing" (s.ToUpper for instance won't work).

--
-C. Moya

CM's Home Page

https://www.cmoya.com

"Scott M." <s-mar@nospam.nosp am> wrote in message
news:O7e3xHLNGH A.2036@TK2MSFTN GP14.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> IMHO (and this has been debated for quite some time now), you should view
> all of the old "data-type" specific functions as legacy functions and no
> longer use them. Instead, use the more object-oriented methods of a type.
>
> CStr, CBool, CDbl, CInt, etc. would all be replaced with CType or
> .ToString
> All date/time functions would be replaced with methods and properties of
> the Date class
> All string functions would be replaced with methods and properties of the
> String class.
>
> et all.
>
>
> "Sean" <Sean@discussio ns.microsoft.co m> wrote in message
> news:68FBFD12-1AF2-4F12-821F-2CC4E6F8E957@mi crosoft.com...[color=green]
>> Book I am reading says that Cstr() is best method for efficency and
>> safety
>> however it doesnt compare that method of the .ToString() method.
>>
>> Which is best.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

**Bob Lehmann** · Feb 18 '06, 11:05 PM

Re: CStr() vs. .ToString()

>> You can't use the OO methods on a string that is "Nothing"

Why would you want to?

Oh, I get it, you're too lazy to check the data before performing an
operation it. Isn't checking your data a 100 level concept?

I'm guessing that On Error Resume Next is one of your friends too.

Bob Lehmann

"CMM" <cmm@nospam.com > wrote in message
news:%23h%23gze NNGHA.1676@TK2M SFTNGP09.phx.gb l...[color=blue]
> I don't think that's true at all. First off, CStr,CBool, Etc. are all just
> easier-to-read specialized wrappers around CType..... which in and of[/color]
itself[color=blue]
> is a special "VB" construct. The true "non-VB" casting operator is
> DirectCast(...) .
>
> Contrary to what Scott M says you're SUPPOSED to use them. What's the[/color]
point[color=blue]
> of using VB if you're not going to use its special methods that make your
> life easier? This is straight from the VB documentation:
>
> "As a rule, you should use the Visual Basic type conversion functions in
> preference to the .NET Framework methods such as ToString(), either on the
> Convert class or on an individual type structure or class. The Visual[/color]
Basic[color=blue]
> functions are designed for optimal interaction with Visual Basic code, and
> they also make your source code shorter and easier to read. In addition,[/color]
the[color=blue]
> .NET Framework conversion methods do not always produce the same results[/color]
as[color=blue]
> the Visual Basic functions, for example when converting Boolean to[/color]
Integer.[color=blue]
> For more information, see Troubleshooting Data Types."
>
> In addition, although I'm a guy who always initializes strings and objects
> as soon as possible rather than have them sit around until my algorithm[/color]
uses[color=blue]
> them- so I don't really care about the following- but, there's an[/color]
advantage[color=blue]
> to using VB's functions: they interpret "Nothing." You can't use the OO
> methods on a string that is "Nothing" (s.ToUpper for instance won't work).
>
> --
> -C. Moya
> www.cmoya.com
> "Scott M." <s-mar@nospam.nosp am> wrote in message
> news:O7e3xHLNGH A.2036@TK2MSFTN GP14.phx.gbl...[color=green]
> > IMHO (and this has been debated for quite some time now), you should[/color][/color]
view[color=blue][color=green]
> > all of the old "data-type" specific functions as legacy functions and no
> > longer use them. Instead, use the more object-oriented methods of a[/color][/color]
type.[color=blue][color=green]
> >
> > CStr, CBool, CDbl, CInt, etc. would all be replaced with CType or
> > .ToString
> > All date/time functions would be replaced with methods and properties of
> > the Date class
> > All string functions would be replaced with methods and properties of[/color][/color]
the[color=blue][color=green]
> > String class.
> >
> > et all.
> >
> >
> > "Sean" <Sean@discussio ns.microsoft.co m> wrote in message
> > news:68FBFD12-1AF2-4F12-821F-2CC4E6F8E957@mi crosoft.com...[color=darkred]
> >> Book I am reading says that Cstr() is best method for efficency and
> >> safety
> >> however it doesnt compare that method of the .ToString() method.
> >>
> >> Which is best.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >>[/color]
> >
> >[/color]
>
>[/color]

**Martin** · Feb 18 '06, 11:35 PM

Re: CStr() vs. .ToString()

Wow, what happened to put you in this mood?
Checking if a variable actually contains data before doing a convert to
upper case is simply too much code. If you can avoid that it makes the code
a lot better readable.

"Bob Lehmann" <nospam@dontbot herme.zzz> wrote in message
news:epp0n5NNGH A.3856@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl...[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> You can't use the OO methods on a string that is "Nothing"[/color][/color]
>
> Why would you want to?
>
> Oh, I get it, you're too lazy to check the data before performing an
> operation it. Isn't checking your data a 100 level concept?
>
> I'm guessing that On Error Resume Next is one of your friends too.
>
> Bob Lehmann
>
> "CMM" <cmm@nospam.com > wrote in message
> news:%23h%23gze NNGHA.1676@TK2M SFTNGP09.phx.gb l...[color=green]
>> I don't think that's true at all. First off, CStr,CBool, Etc. are all
>> just
>> easier-to-read specialized wrappers around CType..... which in and of[/color]
> itself[color=green]
>> is a special "VB" construct. The true "non-VB" casting operator is
>> DirectCast(...) .
>>
>> Contrary to what Scott M says you're SUPPOSED to use them. What's the[/color]
> point[color=green]
>> of using VB if you're not going to use its special methods that make your
>> life easier? This is straight from the VB documentation:
>>
>> "As a rule, you should use the Visual Basic type conversion functions in
>> preference to the .NET Framework methods such as ToString(), either on
>> the
>> Convert class or on an individual type structure or class. The Visual[/color]
> Basic[color=green]
>> functions are designed for optimal interaction with Visual Basic code,
>> and
>> they also make your source code shorter and easier to read. In addition,[/color]
> the[color=green]
>> .NET Framework conversion methods do not always produce the same results[/color]
> as[color=green]
>> the Visual Basic functions, for example when converting Boolean to[/color]
> Integer.[color=green]
>> For more information, see Troubleshooting Data Types."
>>
>> In addition, although I'm a guy who always initializes strings and
>> objects
>> as soon as possible rather than have them sit around until my algorithm[/color]
> uses[color=green]
>> them- so I don't really care about the following- but, there's an[/color]
> advantage[color=green]
>> to using VB's functions: they interpret "Nothing." You can't use the OO
>> methods on a string that is "Nothing" (s.ToUpper for instance won't
>> work).
>>
>> --
>> -C. Moya
>> www.cmoya.com
>> "Scott M." <s-mar@nospam.nosp am> wrote in message
>> news:O7e3xHLNGH A.2036@TK2MSFTN GP14.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>> > IMHO (and this has been debated for quite some time now), you should[/color][/color]
> view[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > all of the old "data-type" specific functions as legacy functions and
>> > no
>> > longer use them. Instead, use the more object-oriented methods of a[/color][/color]
> type.[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >
>> > CStr, CBool, CDbl, CInt, etc. would all be replaced with CType or
>> > .ToString
>> > All date/time functions would be replaced with methods and properties
>> > of
>> > the Date class
>> > All string functions would be replaced with methods and properties of[/color][/color]
> the[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > String class.
>> >
>> > et all.
>> >
>> >
>> > "Sean" <Sean@discussio ns.microsoft.co m> wrote in message
>> > news:68FBFD12-1AF2-4F12-821F-2CC4E6F8E957@mi crosoft.com...
>> >> Book I am reading says that Cstr() is best method for efficency and
>> >> safety
>> >> however it doesnt compare that method of the .ToString() method.
>> >>
>> >> Which is best.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >[/color]
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

**Stephany Young** · Feb 18 '06, 11:35 PM

Re: CStr() vs. .ToString()

Give that man a Kewpie doll!

"Bob Lehmann" <nospam@dontbot herme.zzz> wrote in message
news:epp0n5NNGH A.3856@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl...[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> You can't use the OO methods on a string that is "Nothing"[/color][/color]
>
> Why would you want to?
>
> Oh, I get it, you're too lazy to check the data before performing an
> operation it. Isn't checking your data a 100 level concept?
>
> I'm guessing that On Error Resume Next is one of your friends too.
>
> Bob Lehmann
>
> "CMM" <cmm@nospam.com > wrote in message
> news:%23h%23gze NNGHA.1676@TK2M SFTNGP09.phx.gb l...[color=green]
>> I don't think that's true at all. First off, CStr,CBool, Etc. are all
>> just
>> easier-to-read specialized wrappers around CType..... which in and of[/color]
> itself[color=green]
>> is a special "VB" construct. The true "non-VB" casting operator is
>> DirectCast(...) .
>>
>> Contrary to what Scott M says you're SUPPOSED to use them. What's the[/color]
> point[color=green]
>> of using VB if you're not going to use its special methods that make your
>> life easier? This is straight from the VB documentation:
>>
>> "As a rule, you should use the Visual Basic type conversion functions in
>> preference to the .NET Framework methods such as ToString(), either on
>> the
>> Convert class or on an individual type structure or class. The Visual[/color]
> Basic[color=green]
>> functions are designed for optimal interaction with Visual Basic code,
>> and
>> they also make your source code shorter and easier to read. In addition,[/color]
> the[color=green]
>> .NET Framework conversion methods do not always produce the same results[/color]
> as[color=green]
>> the Visual Basic functions, for example when converting Boolean to[/color]
> Integer.[color=green]
>> For more information, see Troubleshooting Data Types."
>>
>> In addition, although I'm a guy who always initializes strings and
>> objects
>> as soon as possible rather than have them sit around until my algorithm[/color]
> uses[color=green]
>> them- so I don't really care about the following- but, there's an[/color]
> advantage[color=green]
>> to using VB's functions: they interpret "Nothing." You can't use the OO
>> methods on a string that is "Nothing" (s.ToUpper for instance won't
>> work).
>>
>> --
>> -C. Moya
>> www.cmoya.com
>> "Scott M." <s-mar@nospam.nosp am> wrote in message
>> news:O7e3xHLNGH A.2036@TK2MSFTN GP14.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>> > IMHO (and this has been debated for quite some time now), you should[/color][/color]
> view[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > all of the old "data-type" specific functions as legacy functions and
>> > no
>> > longer use them. Instead, use the more object-oriented methods of a[/color][/color]
> type.[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >
>> > CStr, CBool, CDbl, CInt, etc. would all be replaced with CType or
>> > .ToString
>> > All date/time functions would be replaced with methods and properties
>> > of
>> > the Date class
>> > All string functions would be replaced with methods and properties of[/color][/color]
> the[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > String class.
>> >
>> > et all.
>> >
>> >
>> > "Sean" <Sean@discussio ns.microsoft.co m> wrote in message
>> > news:68FBFD12-1AF2-4F12-821F-2CC4E6F8E957@mi crosoft.com...
>> >> Book I am reading says that Cstr() is best method for efficency and
>> >> safety
>> >> however it doesnt compare that method of the .ToString() method.
>> >>
>> >> Which is best.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >[/color]
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

**Bob Lehmann** · Feb 19 '06, 12:55 AM

Re: CStr() vs. .ToString()

>> Checking if a variable actually contains data before doing a convert ..
is simply too much code.
You aren't serious, are you?
[color=blue][color=green]
>> If you can avoid that it makes the code a lot better readable.[/color][/color]
You mean like the sentence above? I'm sure you meant "a lot more better
readablest".

Happy coding, pal.

Bob Lehmann

"Martin" <x@y.com> wrote in message
news:uuTEZGONGH A.1536@TK2MSFTN GP11.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Wow, what happened to put you in this mood?
> Checking if a variable actually contains data before doing a convert to
> upper case is simply too much code. If you can avoid that it makes the[/color]
code[color=blue]
> a lot better readable.
>
>
> "Bob Lehmann" <nospam@dontbot herme.zzz> wrote in message
> news:epp0n5NNGH A.3856@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl...[color=green][color=darkred]
> >>> You can't use the OO methods on a string that is "Nothing"[/color]
> >
> > Why would you want to?
> >
> > Oh, I get it, you're too lazy to check the data before performing an
> > operation it. Isn't checking your data a 100 level concept?
> >
> > I'm guessing that On Error Resume Next is one of your friends too.
> >
> > Bob Lehmann
> >
> > "CMM" <cmm@nospam.com > wrote in message
> > news:%23h%23gze NNGHA.1676@TK2M SFTNGP09.phx.gb l...[color=darkred]
> >> I don't think that's true at all. First off, CStr,CBool, Etc. are all
> >> just
> >> easier-to-read specialized wrappers around CType..... which in and of[/color]
> > itself[color=darkred]
> >> is a special "VB" construct. The true "non-VB" casting operator is
> >> DirectCast(...) .
> >>
> >> Contrary to what Scott M says you're SUPPOSED to use them. What's the[/color]
> > point[color=darkred]
> >> of using VB if you're not going to use its special methods that make[/color][/color][/color]
your[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> life easier? This is straight from the VB documentation:
> >>
> >> "As a rule, you should use the Visual Basic type conversion functions[/color][/color][/color]
in[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> preference to the .NET Framework methods such as ToString(), either on
> >> the
> >> Convert class or on an individual type structure or class. The Visual[/color]
> > Basic[color=darkred]
> >> functions are designed for optimal interaction with Visual Basic code,
> >> and
> >> they also make your source code shorter and easier to read. In[/color][/color][/color]
addition,[color=blue][color=green]
> > the[color=darkred]
> >> .NET Framework conversion methods do not always produce the same[/color][/color][/color]
results[color=blue][color=green]
> > as[color=darkred]
> >> the Visual Basic functions, for example when converting Boolean to[/color]
> > Integer.[color=darkred]
> >> For more information, see Troubleshooting Data Types."
> >>
> >> In addition, although I'm a guy who always initializes strings and
> >> objects
> >> as soon as possible rather than have them sit around until my algorithm[/color]
> > uses[color=darkred]
> >> them- so I don't really care about the following- but, there's an[/color]
> > advantage[color=darkred]
> >> to using VB's functions: they interpret "Nothing." You can't use the OO
> >> methods on a string that is "Nothing" (s.ToUpper for instance won't
> >> work).
> >>
> >> --
> >> -C. Moya
> >> www.cmoya.com
> >> "Scott M." <s-mar@nospam.nosp am> wrote in message
> >> news:O7e3xHLNGH A.2036@TK2MSFTN GP14.phx.gbl...
> >> > IMHO (and this has been debated for quite some time now), you should[/color]
> > view[color=darkred]
> >> > all of the old "data-type" specific functions as legacy functions and
> >> > no
> >> > longer use them. Instead, use the more object-oriented methods of a[/color]
> > type.[color=darkred]
> >> >
> >> > CStr, CBool, CDbl, CInt, etc. would all be replaced with CType or
> >> > .ToString
> >> > All date/time functions would be replaced with methods and properties
> >> > of
> >> > the Date class
> >> > All string functions would be replaced with methods and properties of[/color]
> > the[color=darkred]
> >> > String class.
> >> >
> >> > et all.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Sean" <Sean@discussio ns.microsoft.co m> wrote in message
> >> > news:68FBFD12-1AF2-4F12-821F-2CC4E6F8E957@mi crosoft.com...
> >> >> Book I am reading says that Cstr() is best method for efficency and
> >> >> safety
> >> >> however it doesnt compare that method of the .ToString() method.
> >> >>
> >> >> Which is best.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>[/color]
> >
> >[/color]
>
>[/color]

**Martin** · Feb 19 '06, 01:15 AM

Re: CStr() vs. .ToString()

Just wondering... Have you ever contibuted anything positive to this
newsgroup? (or to anything else)

"Bob Lehmann" <nospam@dontbot herme.zzz> wrote in message
news:e6ugG1ONGH A.3944@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Checking if a variable actually contains data before doing a convert ..[/color][/color]
> is simply too much code.
> You aren't serious, are you?
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> If you can avoid that it makes the code a lot better readable.[/color][/color]
> You mean like the sentence above? I'm sure you meant "a lot more better
> readablest".
>
> Happy coding, pal.
>
> Bob Lehmann
>
> "Martin" <x@y.com> wrote in message
> news:uuTEZGONGH A.1536@TK2MSFTN GP11.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> Wow, what happened to put you in this mood?
>> Checking if a variable actually contains data before doing a convert to
>> upper case is simply too much code. If you can avoid that it makes the[/color]
> code[color=green]
>> a lot better readable.
>>
>>
>> "Bob Lehmann" <nospam@dontbot herme.zzz> wrote in message
>> news:epp0n5NNGH A.3856@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>> >>> You can't use the OO methods on a string that is "Nothing"
>> >
>> > Why would you want to?
>> >
>> > Oh, I get it, you're too lazy to check the data before performing an
>> > operation it. Isn't checking your data a 100 level concept?
>> >
>> > I'm guessing that On Error Resume Next is one of your friends too.
>> >
>> > Bob Lehmann
>> >
>> > "CMM" <cmm@nospam.com > wrote in message
>> > news:%23h%23gze NNGHA.1676@TK2M SFTNGP09.phx.gb l...
>> >> I don't think that's true at all. First off, CStr,CBool, Etc. are all
>> >> just
>> >> easier-to-read specialized wrappers around CType..... which in and of
>> > itself
>> >> is a special "VB" construct. The true "non-VB" casting operator is
>> >> DirectCast(...) .
>> >>
>> >> Contrary to what Scott M says you're SUPPOSED to use them. What's the
>> > point
>> >> of using VB if you're not going to use its special methods that make[/color][/color]
> your[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> life easier? This is straight from the VB documentation:
>> >>
>> >> "As a rule, you should use the Visual Basic type conversion functions[/color][/color]
> in[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> preference to the .NET Framework methods such as ToString(), either on
>> >> the
>> >> Convert class or on an individual type structure or class. The Visual
>> > Basic
>> >> functions are designed for optimal interaction with Visual Basic code,
>> >> and
>> >> they also make your source code shorter and easier to read. In[/color][/color]
> addition,[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > the
>> >> .NET Framework conversion methods do not always produce the same[/color][/color]
> results[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > as
>> >> the Visual Basic functions, for example when converting Boolean to
>> > Integer.
>> >> For more information, see Troubleshooting Data Types."
>> >>
>> >> In addition, although I'm a guy who always initializes strings and
>> >> objects
>> >> as soon as possible rather than have them sit around until my
>> >> algorithm
>> > uses
>> >> them- so I don't really care about the following- but, there's an
>> > advantage
>> >> to using VB's functions: they interpret "Nothing." You can't use the
>> >> OO
>> >> methods on a string that is "Nothing" (s.ToUpper for instance won't
>> >> work).
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> -C. Moya
>> >> www.cmoya.com
>> >> "Scott M." <s-mar@nospam.nosp am> wrote in message
>> >> news:O7e3xHLNGH A.2036@TK2MSFTN GP14.phx.gbl...
>> >> > IMHO (and this has been debated for quite some time now), you should
>> > view
>> >> > all of the old "data-type" specific functions as legacy functions
>> >> > and
>> >> > no
>> >> > longer use them. Instead, use the more object-oriented methods of a
>> > type.
>> >> >
>> >> > CStr, CBool, CDbl, CInt, etc. would all be replaced with CType or
>> >> > .ToString
>> >> > All date/time functions would be replaced with methods and
>> >> > properties
>> >> > of
>> >> > the Date class
>> >> > All string functions would be replaced with methods and properties
>> >> > of
>> > the
>> >> > String class.
>> >> >
>> >> > et all.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > "Sean" <Sean@discussio ns.microsoft.co m> wrote in message
>> >> > news:68FBFD12-1AF2-4F12-821F-2CC4E6F8E957@mi crosoft.com...
>> >> >> Book I am reading says that Cstr() is best method for efficency and
>> >> >> safety
>> >> >> however it doesnt compare that method of the .ToString() method.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Which is best.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >[/color]
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

**CMM** · Feb 19 '06, 01:45 AM

Re: CStr() vs. .ToString()

Nonsense. CStr is not some VB6 (better term is VB.Classic) legacy thing....
in .NET it's just a convenience wrapper around CType... which when used to
cast to a string is simply a wrapper around the object's ToString("G"). I
personally tend to use ToString() as well on my own strings.... but when I'm
handling strings that come from functions that I know might return nulls I'd
tend to use CStr().... it's the same exact thing as typing out all your "If
bla Is Nothing" code that I'm sure litters your nasty code (or maybe it
doesn't.... which is just as bad).

P.S. I'm not sure you know what a Method vs. a Function vs. a Statement
is... at least judging from the poppycock vomited in your post.

--
-C. Moya

CM's Home Page

https://www.cmoya.com

"Scott M." <s-mar@nospam.nosp am> wrote in message
news:eBEJ1bNNGH A.2816@TK2MSFTN GP15.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>
> "guy" <guy@discussion s.microsoft.com > wrote in message
> news:2199BA10-0B41-4D7D-B7AF-F34D469457BD@mi crosoft.com...[color=green]
>> both points of view are valid, however i use the vb string methods as the
>> compiler makes optimzations that can improve performance over the native
>> .Net
>> methods, also i find the vb methods read better.[/color]
>
> The VB 6.0 way are not methods, they are functions. The .NET way are
> object methods. The VB.NET compiler does NOT optimize the VB 6.0
> functions to work BETTER than the natvie .NET object methods.
>
> To answer your question, ToString would be my suggestion, rather than
> CStr(). ToString is a method of the Object Type, and since all classes
> inherit from Object, all objects have this method.
>
>[color=green]
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> guy
>>
>> "Scott M." wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> IMHO (and this has been debated for quite some time now), you should
>>> view
>>> all of the old "data-type" specific functions as legacy functions and no
>>> longer use them. Instead, use the more object-oriented methods of a
>>> type.
>>>
>>> CStr, CBool, CDbl, CInt, etc. would all be replaced with CType or
>>> .ToString
>>> All date/time functions would be replaced with methods and properties of
>>> the
>>> Date class
>>> All string functions would be replaced with methods and properties of
>>> the
>>> String class.
>>>
>>> et all.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Sean" <Sean@discussio ns.microsoft.co m> wrote in message
>>> news:68FBFD12-1AF2-4F12-821F-2CC4E6F8E957@mi crosoft.com...
>>> > Book I am reading says that Cstr() is best method for efficency and
>>> > safety
>>> > however it doesnt compare that method of the .ToString() method.
>>> >
>>> > Which is best.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>[/color][/color]
>
>[/color]

**Bob Lehmann** · Feb 19 '06, 02:15 AM

Re: CStr() vs. .ToString()

>> Have you ever contibuted anything positive
Uh, yeah.

I suggested that checking your data before performing operations the data is
a best practice. I highly doubt that any competent programmer would
disagree. Apparently you are not in that group.

Or, is your specialty in buffer overruns?

At least you have a sound rationale -
"Checking if a variable actually contains data before doing a convert to
upper case is simply too much code."

Waaaaa! But Mom, those extra 20 keystrokes to check the data are soooo hard
to do. And besides, my code is better readable since you know I don't indent
If blocks.

Perhaps you should stick to scripting languages where you don't have all the
icky typed variable stuff going on. I mean, isn't it a hassle declaring all
those variable thingys, with all that code and stuff?

Maybe, after you've completed Junior High, you'll have a different
perspective.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> (or to anything else)[/color][/color]
Yes, I don't write malware.

Bob Lehmann

"Martin" <x@y.com> wrote in message
news:eFF6lBPNGH A.536@TK2MSFTNG P09.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Just wondering... Have you ever contibuted anything positive to this
> newsgroup? (or to anything else)
>
>
> "Bob Lehmann" <nospam@dontbot herme.zzz> wrote in message
> news:e6ugG1ONGH A.3944@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...[color=green][color=darkred]
> >>> Checking if a variable actually contains data before doing a convert[/color][/color][/color]
...[color=blue][color=green]
> > is simply too much code.
> > You aren't serious, are you?
> >[color=darkred]
> >>> If you can avoid that it makes the code a lot better readable.[/color]
> > You mean like the sentence above? I'm sure you meant "a lot more better
> > readablest".
> >
> > Happy coding, pal.
> >
> > Bob Lehmann
> >
> > "Martin" <x@y.com> wrote in message
> > news:uuTEZGONGH A.1536@TK2MSFTN GP11.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
> >> Wow, what happened to put you in this mood?
> >> Checking if a variable actually contains data before doing a convert to
> >> upper case is simply too much code. If you can avoid that it makes the[/color]
> > code[color=darkred]
> >> a lot better readable.
> >>
> >>
> >> "Bob Lehmann" <nospam@dontbot herme.zzz> wrote in message
> >> news:epp0n5NNGH A.3856@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl...
> >> >>> You can't use the OO methods on a string that is "Nothing"
> >> >
> >> > Why would you want to?
> >> >
> >> > Oh, I get it, you're too lazy to check the data before performing an
> >> > operation it. Isn't checking your data a 100 level concept?
> >> >
> >> > I'm guessing that On Error Resume Next is one of your friends too.
> >> >
> >> > Bob Lehmann
> >> >
> >> > "CMM" <cmm@nospam.com > wrote in message
> >> > news:%23h%23gze NNGHA.1676@TK2M SFTNGP09.phx.gb l...
> >> >> I don't think that's true at all. First off, CStr,CBool, Etc. are[/color][/color][/color]
all[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> >> just
> >> >> easier-to-read specialized wrappers around CType..... which in and[/color][/color][/color]
of[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> > itself
> >> >> is a special "VB" construct. The true "non-VB" casting operator is
> >> >> DirectCast(...) .
> >> >>
> >> >> Contrary to what Scott M says you're SUPPOSED to use them. What's[/color][/color][/color]
the[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> > point
> >> >> of using VB if you're not going to use its special methods that make[/color]
> > your[color=darkred]
> >> >> life easier? This is straight from the VB documentation:
> >> >>
> >> >> "As a rule, you should use the Visual Basic type conversion[/color][/color][/color]
functions[color=blue][color=green]
> > in[color=darkred]
> >> >> preference to the .NET Framework methods such as ToString(), either[/color][/color][/color]
on[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> >> the
> >> >> Convert class or on an individual type structure or class. The[/color][/color][/color]
Visual[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> > Basic
> >> >> functions are designed for optimal interaction with Visual Basic[/color][/color][/color]
code,[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> >> and
> >> >> they also make your source code shorter and easier to read. In[/color]
> > addition,[color=darkred]
> >> > the
> >> >> .NET Framework conversion methods do not always produce the same[/color]
> > results[color=darkred]
> >> > as
> >> >> the Visual Basic functions, for example when converting Boolean to
> >> > Integer.
> >> >> For more information, see Troubleshooting Data Types."
> >> >>
> >> >> In addition, although I'm a guy who always initializes strings and
> >> >> objects
> >> >> as soon as possible rather than have them sit around until my
> >> >> algorithm
> >> > uses
> >> >> them- so I don't really care about the following- but, there's an
> >> > advantage
> >> >> to using VB's functions: they interpret "Nothing." You can't use the
> >> >> OO
> >> >> methods on a string that is "Nothing" (s.ToUpper for instance won't
> >> >> work).
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> -C. Moya
> >> >> www.cmoya.com
> >> >> "Scott M." <s-mar@nospam.nosp am> wrote in message
> >> >> news:O7e3xHLNGH A.2036@TK2MSFTN GP14.phx.gbl...
> >> >> > IMHO (and this has been debated for quite some time now), you[/color][/color][/color]
should[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> > view
> >> >> > all of the old "data-type" specific functions as legacy functions
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > no
> >> >> > longer use them. Instead, use the more object-oriented methods of[/color][/color][/color]
a[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> > type.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > CStr, CBool, CDbl, CInt, etc. would all be replaced with CType or
> >> >> > .ToString
> >> >> > All date/time functions would be replaced with methods and
> >> >> > properties
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > the Date class
> >> >> > All string functions would be replaced with methods and properties
> >> >> > of
> >> > the
> >> >> > String class.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > et all.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Sean" <Sean@discussio ns.microsoft.co m> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:68FBFD12-1AF2-4F12-821F-2CC4E6F8E957@mi crosoft.com...
> >> >> >> Book I am reading says that Cstr() is best method for efficency[/color][/color][/color]
and[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> >> >> safety
> >> >> >> however it doesnt compare that method of the .ToString() method.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Which is best.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Thanks
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>[/color]
> >
> >[/color]
>
>[/color]

**Martin** · Feb 19 '06, 02:25 AM

Re: CStr() vs. .ToString()

Finishing junior high may be your problem. I have a real education ;-)

"Bob Lehmann" <nospam@dontbot herme.zzz> wrote in message
news:ubhnniPNGH A.3276@TK2MSFTN GP09.phx.gbl...[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Have you ever contibuted anything positive[/color][/color]
> Uh, yeah.
>
> I suggested that checking your data before performing operations the data
> is
> a best practice. I highly doubt that any competent programmer would
> disagree. Apparently you are not in that group.
>
> Or, is your specialty in buffer overruns?
>
> At least you have a sound rationale -
> "Checking if a variable actually contains data before doing a convert to
> upper case is simply too much code."
>
> Waaaaa! But Mom, those extra 20 keystrokes to check the data are soooo
> hard
> to do. And besides, my code is better readable since you know I don't
> indent
> If blocks.
>
> Perhaps you should stick to scripting languages where you don't have all
> the
> icky typed variable stuff going on. I mean, isn't it a hassle declaring
> all
> those variable thingys, with all that code and stuff?
>
> Maybe, after you've completed Junior High, you'll have a different
> perspective.
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> (or to anything else)[/color][/color]
> Yes, I don't write malware.
>
> Bob Lehmann
>
> "Martin" <x@y.com> wrote in message
> news:eFF6lBPNGH A.536@TK2MSFTNG P09.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> Just wondering... Have you ever contibuted anything positive to this
>> newsgroup? (or to anything else)
>>
>>
>> "Bob Lehmann" <nospam@dontbot herme.zzz> wrote in message
>> news:e6ugG1ONGH A.3944@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>> >>> Checking if a variable actually contains data before doing a convert[/color][/color]
> ..[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > is simply too much code.
>> > You aren't serious, are you?
>> >
>> >>> If you can avoid that it makes the code a lot better readable.
>> > You mean like the sentence above? I'm sure you meant "a lot more better
>> > readablest".
>> >
>> > Happy coding, pal.
>> >
>> > Bob Lehmann
>> >
>> > "Martin" <x@y.com> wrote in message
>> > news:uuTEZGONGH A.1536@TK2MSFTN GP11.phx.gbl...
>> >> Wow, what happened to put you in this mood?
>> >> Checking if a variable actually contains data before doing a convert
>> >> to
>> >> upper case is simply too much code. If you can avoid that it makes the
>> > code
>> >> a lot better readable.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Bob Lehmann" <nospam@dontbot herme.zzz> wrote in message
>> >> news:epp0n5NNGH A.3856@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl...
>> >> >>> You can't use the OO methods on a string that is "Nothing"
>> >> >
>> >> > Why would you want to?
>> >> >
>> >> > Oh, I get it, you're too lazy to check the data before performing an
>> >> > operation it. Isn't checking your data a 100 level concept?
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm guessing that On Error Resume Next is one of your friends too.
>> >> >
>> >> > Bob Lehmann
>> >> >
>> >> > "CMM" <cmm@nospam.com > wrote in message
>> >> > news:%23h%23gze NNGHA.1676@TK2M SFTNGP09.phx.gb l...
>> >> >> I don't think that's true at all. First off, CStr,CBool, Etc. are[/color][/color]
> all[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> >> just
>> >> >> easier-to-read specialized wrappers around CType..... which in and[/color][/color]
> of[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> > itself
>> >> >> is a special "VB" construct. The true "non-VB" casting operator is
>> >> >> DirectCast(...) .
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Contrary to what Scott M says you're SUPPOSED to use them. What's[/color][/color]
> the[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> > point
>> >> >> of using VB if you're not going to use its special methods that
>> >> >> make
>> > your
>> >> >> life easier? This is straight from the VB documentation:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "As a rule, you should use the Visual Basic type conversion[/color][/color]
> functions[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > in
>> >> >> preference to the .NET Framework methods such as ToString(), either[/color][/color]
> on[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> Convert class or on an individual type structure or class. The[/color][/color]
> Visual[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> > Basic
>> >> >> functions are designed for optimal interaction with Visual Basic[/color][/color]
> code,[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> they also make your source code shorter and easier to read. In
>> > addition,
>> >> > the
>> >> >> .NET Framework conversion methods do not always produce the same
>> > results
>> >> > as
>> >> >> the Visual Basic functions, for example when converting Boolean to
>> >> > Integer.
>> >> >> For more information, see Troubleshooting Data Types."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In addition, although I'm a guy who always initializes strings and
>> >> >> objects
>> >> >> as soon as possible rather than have them sit around until my
>> >> >> algorithm
>> >> > uses
>> >> >> them- so I don't really care about the following- but, there's an
>> >> > advantage
>> >> >> to using VB's functions: they interpret "Nothing." You can't use
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> OO
>> >> >> methods on a string that is "Nothing" (s.ToUpper for instance won't
>> >> >> work).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> -C. Moya
>> >> >> www.cmoya.com
>> >> >> "Scott M." <s-mar@nospam.nosp am> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:O7e3xHLNGH A.2036@TK2MSFTN GP14.phx.gbl...
>> >> >> > IMHO (and this has been debated for quite some time now), you[/color][/color]
> should[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> > view
>> >> >> > all of the old "data-type" specific functions as legacy functions
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > no
>> >> >> > longer use them. Instead, use the more object-oriented methods
>> >> >> > of[/color][/color]
> a[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> > type.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > CStr, CBool, CDbl, CInt, etc. would all be replaced with CType or
>> >> >> > .ToString
>> >> >> > All date/time functions would be replaced with methods and
>> >> >> > properties
>> >> >> > of
>> >> >> > the Date class
>> >> >> > All string functions would be replaced with methods and
>> >> >> > properties
>> >> >> > of
>> >> > the
>> >> >> > String class.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > et all.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "Sean" <Sean@discussio ns.microsoft.co m> wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:68FBFD12-1AF2-4F12-821F-2CC4E6F8E957@mi crosoft.com...
>> >> >> >> Book I am reading says that Cstr() is best method for efficency[/color][/color]
> and[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> >> >> safety
>> >> >> >> however it doesnt compare that method of the .ToString() method.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Which is best.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Thanks
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >[/color]
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

**Scott M.** · Feb 19 '06, 06:15 AM

Re: CStr() vs. .ToString()

I think you better read your own post. CStr() is a built-in function of the
VB 6 language. It is not a method. ToString is a method of the Object type
(which all classes in .NET derive from). So, I'm not sure why you feel the
need to call this poppycock and suggest that I don't know what a function
vs. a method is.

As for which is better... As I said in my first post, it is a matter of
choice and I prefer the more object-oriented ToString object method.

"CMM" <cmm@nospam.com > wrote in message
news:edKgVRPNGH A.1608@TK2MSFTN GP11.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Nonsense. CStr is not some VB6 (better term is VB.Classic) legacy
> thing.... in .NET it's just a convenience wrapper around CType... which
> when used to cast to a string is simply a wrapper around the object's
> ToString("G"). I personally tend to use ToString() as well on my own
> strings.... but when I'm handling strings that come from functions that I
> know might return nulls I'd tend to use CStr().... it's the same exact
> thing as typing out all your "If bla Is Nothing" code that I'm sure
> litters your nasty code (or maybe it doesn't.... which is just as bad).
>
> P.S. I'm not sure you know what a Method vs. a Function vs. a Statement
> is... at least judging from the poppycock vomited in your post.
>
> --
> -C. Moya
> www.cmoya.com
> "Scott M." <s-mar@nospam.nosp am> wrote in message
> news:eBEJ1bNNGH A.2816@TK2MSFTN GP15.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>>
>> "guy" <guy@discussion s.microsoft.com > wrote in message
>> news:2199BA10-0B41-4D7D-B7AF-F34D469457BD@mi crosoft.com...[color=darkred]
>>> both points of view are valid, however i use the vb string methods as
>>> the
>>> compiler makes optimzations that can improve performance over the native
>>> .Net
>>> methods, also i find the vb methods read better.[/color]
>>
>> The VB 6.0 way are not methods, they are functions. The .NET way are
>> object methods. The VB.NET compiler does NOT optimize the VB 6.0
>> functions to work BETTER than the natvie .NET object methods.
>>
>> To answer your question, ToString would be my suggestion, rather than
>> CStr(). ToString is a method of the Object Type, and since all classes
>> inherit from Object, all objects have this method.
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> cheers
>>>
>>> guy
>>>
>>> "Scott M." wrote:
>>>
>>>> IMHO (and this has been debated for quite some time now), you should
>>>> view
>>>> all of the old "data-type" specific functions as legacy functions and
>>>> no
>>>> longer use them. Instead, use the more object-oriented methods of a
>>>> type.
>>>>
>>>> CStr, CBool, CDbl, CInt, etc. would all be replaced with CType or
>>>> .ToString
>>>> All date/time functions would be replaced with methods and properties
>>>> of the
>>>> Date class
>>>> All string functions would be replaced with methods and properties of
>>>> the
>>>> String class.
>>>>
>>>> et all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Sean" <Sean@discussio ns.microsoft.co m> wrote in message
>>>> news:68FBFD12-1AF2-4F12-821F-2CC4E6F8E957@mi crosoft.com...
>>>> > Book I am reading says that Cstr() is best method for efficency and
>>>> > safety
>>>> > however it doesnt compare that method of the .ToString() method.
>>>> >
>>>> > Which is best.
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>[/color]
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

CStr() vs. .ToString()

CStr() vs. .ToString()

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment