We Keep Coding

Differents in static methods and non static methods in classes without fields

Someone once wrote:
The space required for an instance depends only on the fields.
The methods require memory too but only one time per class. Like static fields. That memory is allocated when the class is loaded.
But what happens if a class with say like 5 methods and no fields get multiple instances in fields of other classes(composition).
Do they require more memory? Or would it be the same as static methods?
I do ask this question also because maybe it even gets optimised when compiling?
Is there a differents to static class with static methods? Other than u need to create the class each time or pass it around?
Eg.:
class Test1
{
public void DoThis()
{
...
}
public void DoThat()
{
...
}
}
class Test2
{
public void DoSomething()
{
...
}
private Test1 sample = new Test1();
}
class Test3
{
public void DoSomethingElse()
{
...
}
private Test1 sample = new Test1();
}
And so on...

"Behind the scenes", a class method is just like a static method, with the class instance beeing passes by reference as the first parameter.
That is, unless you use virtual methds, which "behind the scenes" are saved as instance members.
That is, because as long as you don't override a method, there is simply no reason to waste an instance's space.
Therefore, the size of both your class instances won't be affected by any non-virtual method you add to the class.
This concept can change between programming languages tho. For example, in Java and Python class methods are virtual by default.

Does static members prevent the instance class from being GC'ed?

Static members are not regarding the instance but the type itself.
But I was wondering :
If I have this class :
public class A
{
...
public static int MyInt{get;set;}
...
}
I can create of course new A()
But my question is :
Does the static member which is "stucked" to the type itself , prevents the instance from being GC'ed ?

Not necessarily. The static member belongs to the class itself, which CLR keeps as a Type object. If the static member was an object of type A, then the static member could keep that particular instance of A from being garbage collected.
public class Example
{
// this particular instance of Example will not be collected
private static readonly Example Default = new Example();
public void Foo()
{
// this instance *can* be collected after Foo returns
Example anotherInstance = new Example();
}
}
This behavior is useful for certain classes which aren't necessarily singletons but do have a "default" behavior that is stateless. One example where I use this is the ParseTreeWalker.Default field in the C# runtime library for the ANTLR 4 project. If you need the default behavior, you can use that instance without creating new objects, but you also have the option of creating your own instances of a class extending ParseTreeWalker to add your own behavior.

No, it does not. This can be easily shown by overwriting the finalizer.

public vs public static Methods

Having read the access modifiers in C# progamming tutorial, I come to conclusion that defining a method public is enough for it to be "seen" from another Form of the same namespace.
However, in practise whenever I tried to implement this, I also had to define the method as static in order for it to be referenced from other Forms of the same namespace.
Am I loosing something?
I am doing somethning wrong?

For a public static method, you don't need a reference to an object. The method is static and can be accessed on class level.
If you can't access a public method, then you need a reference to the object, then you can.
public class AClass
{
public void DoSomething() {}
public static void DoSomethingElse() {}
}
You can use them as follows:
AClass.DoSomethingElse(); // no object reference required
AClass.DoSomething(); // will give compiler error, since you have no object reference.
var anObject = new AClass();
anObject.DoSomething(); // will work fine.
anObject.DoSomethingElse(); // compile error (thx hvd).

public static method do not need object instance, they can be used without creating any instance of the class
ClassName.MyStaticPublicMethodName()
where as public (non-static) method require an Instance of the Class, public (non-static) method in general helps you to work with the data member (field) of the object.
To use a non-static public method you need to create instance of the class
ClassName obj = new ClassName();
obj.MyPublicMethod();

Avoiding static variables with Singleton

A colleague of mine told me that I should never use static variables because if you change them in one place, they are changed everywhere. He told me that instead of using static variables I should use Singleton.
I know that Singleton is for limitation of the number of instances of one class to one.
How can Singleton help me with static variables?

Let's address your statements one at a time:
A colleague of mine told me that I should never use static variables because if you change them in one place, they are changed everywhere.
It seems fairly clear that your colleague means the basic feature of static variables: there is only one instance of a static variable. No matter how many instances of any class you create, any access to a static variable is to the same variable. There is not a separate variable for each instance.
He told me that instead of using static variables I should use Singleton.
This is not good global advice. Static variables and singletons aren't in competition with each other and aren't really substitutes for each other. A singleton is an instance of a class, managed in such a way that only one instance is possible to create. A static variable is similarly tied to exactly one (static) instance of a class, but could be assigned with not only a class instance but any data type such as a scalar. In actuality, to effectively use the singleton pattern, you must store it in a static variable. There is no way to "use a singleton instead of a static variable".
On the other hand, perhaps he meant something slightly different: perhaps he was trying to say that instead of your static class having many different static variables, methods, properties, and fields (altogether, members) that function as if they were a class, you should make those fields non-static, and then expose the wrapping class as a Singleton instance. You would still need a private static field with a method or property (or perhaps just use a get-only property) to expose the singleton.
I know that Singleton is for limitation of the number of instances of one class to one. How can Singleton help me with static variables?
A static class's variables and a singleton are alike in that they both are instantiated once (the former enforced by the compiler and the latter enforced by your implementation). The reason you'd want to use a singleton instead of a static variable inside of a class is when your singleton needs to be a true instance of a class, and not consist simply of the collected static members of a static class. This singleton then gets assigned to a static variable so that all callers can acquire a copy of that same instance. As I said above, you can convert all the different static members of your static class to be instance members of your new non-static class which you will expose as a singleton.
I would also like to mention that the other answers given so far all have issues around thread safety. Below are some correct patterns for managing Singletons.
Below, you can see that an instance of the Singleton class, which has instance (or non-static) members, is created either by static initialization or within the static constructor, and is assigned to the variable _singleton.. We use this pattern to ensure that it is instantiated only once. Then, the static method Instance provides read-only access to the backing field variable, which contains our one, and only one, instance of Singleton.
public class Singleton {
// static members
private static readonly Singleton _singleton = new Singleton();
public static Singleton Instance => _singleton
// instance members
private Singleton() { } // private so no one else can accidentally create an instance
public string Gorp { get; set; }
}
or, the exact same thing but with an explicit static constructor:
public class Singleton {
// static members
private static readonly Singleton _singleton; // instead of here, you can...
static Singleton() {
_singleton = new Singleton(); // do it here
}
public static Singleton Instance => _singleton;
// instance members
private Singleton() { } // private so no one else can accidentally create an instance
public string Gorp { get; set; }
}
You could also use a property default without an explicit backing field (below) or in a static constructor can assign the get-only property (not shown).
public class Singleton {
// static members
public static Singleton Instance { get; } = new Singleton();
// instance members
private Singleton() { } // private so no one else can accidentally create an instance
public string Gorp { get; set; }
}
Since static constructors are guaranteed to run exactly once, whether implicit or explicit, then there are no thread safety issues. Note that any access to the Singleton class can trigger static initialization, even reflection-type access.
You can think of static members of a class as almost like a separate, though conjoined, class:
Instance (non-static) members function like a normal class. They don't live until you perform new Class() on them. Each time you do new, you get a new instance. Instance members have access to all static members, including private members (in the same class).
Static members are like members of a separate, special instance of the class that you cannot explicitly create using new. Inside this class, only static members can be accessed or set. There is an implicit or explicit static constructor which .Net runs at the time of first access (just like the class instance, only you don't explicitly create it, it's created when needed). Static members of a class can be accessed by any other class at any time, in or out of an instance, though respecting access modifiers such as internal or private.

EDIT #ErikE's response is the correct approach.
For thread safety, the field should be initialized thusly:
private static readonly Singleton instance = new Singleton();
One way to use a singleton (lifted from http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff650316.aspx)
using System;
public class Singleton
{
private static Singleton instance;
private Singleton() {}
public static Singleton Instance
{
get
{
if (instance == null)
{
instance = new Singleton();
}
return instance;
}
}
/// non-static members
public string Foo { get; set; }
}
Then,
var foo = Singleton.Instance.Foo;
Singleton.Instance.Foo = "Potential thread collision here.";
Note that the instance member is a static field. You can't implement a singleton without using a static variable, and (I seem to recall - it's been awhile) this instance will be shared across all requests. Because of that, it's inherently not thread safe.
Instead, consider putting these values in a database or other persistent store that's more thread-friendly, and creating a class that interfaces with that portion of your database to provide transparent access.
public static class Foo
{
public static string Bar
{
get { /// retrieve Bar from the db }
set { /// update Bar in the db }
}
}

The whole point of the static modifier is to ensure that the object thus modified is the same wherever it is used as it requires no instantiation. The name originally came about as a static variable has a fixed location in memory and all items referring to it will reference the same memory location.
Now you may wish to use a static field within a class, in which case it exists before the class is instantiated (constructed). There may be instances where you would want this.
A singleton is a different beast. It is a class that is limited to a single instantiation by use of a private constructor and a static property. So in that regard you still can't avoid statics by using a singleton.

To answer the stated question:
It is incredibly stupid (but possible) to create a singleton without a static field.
To do it, you need to use someone else's static field, such as AppDomain.GetData or (in ASP.Net) HttpContext.Application.

Just to answer your question (I hope): Instead of using a static class containing static members like Class1 you can implement the Singleton pattern like in Class2 (please don't begin a discussion about lazy initialization at this point):
public static class Class1
{
public static void DoSomething ()
{
}
}
public static class Class2
{
private Class2() {
}
private Class2 instance;
public Class2 GetInstance(){
if (instance == null)
instance = new Class2();
return instance;
}
public void DoSomething ()
{
}
}
Instead of calling Class1.DoSomething() you can use Class2.GetInstance().DoSomething().
Edit: As you can see there's still a (private) static field inside Class2 holding it's instance.
Edit2 in answer to user966638's comment:
Do I understand you correct that you have code like this:
public class Foo {
private static Bar bar;
}
And your collegue suggests to replace it by this?
public class Foo {
private BarSingleton bar;
}
This could be the case if you want to have different Foo instances where each instance's bar attribute could be set to null for example. But I'm not sure if he meant this what exactly is the use case he is talking about.

Both singleton and static variables give you one instance of a class. Why you should prefer singleton over static is
With Singleton you can manage the lifetime of the instance yourself, they way you want
With Singleton, you have greater control over the initialization of the instance. This useful when initializing an instance of a class is complicated affair.
It's challenging to make static variables thread-safe, with singleton, that task becomes very easy
Hope this helps

What is the need of private constructor in C#?

What is the need of private constructor in C#?
I got it as a question for a C# test.

For example if you have a class that should only be created through factory methods. Or if you have overloads of the constructor, and some of them should only be used by the other constructors. Probably other reasons as well =)

If you know some design pattern, it's obvious: a class could create a new instance of itself internally, and not let others do it.
An example in Java (I don't know C# well enough, sorry) with a singleton-class:
class Meh
{
private Meh() { }
private static Meh theMeh = new Meh();
public static Meh getInstance() { return theMeh; }
}

Whenever you want to prevent direct instantiation of a class from outside of it, you'll use a private constructor. For example, prior to C# 2.0 which introduced static classes, you used a private constructor to accomplish roughly the same thing:
sealed class StaticClass {
private StaticClass() {
}
public static void DoSomething() {
}
}

When you want to prevent the users of your class from instantiating the class directly. Some common cases are:
Classes containing only static methods
Singletons

I can can recall few usages for it:
You could use it from a static factory method inside the same class
You could do some common work inside it and then call it from other contructure
You could use it to prevent the runtime from adding an empty contructure automatically
It could be used (although private) from some mocking and ORM tools (like nhibernate)

For example when you provide factory methods to control instantiation...
public class Test(){
private Test(){
}
void DoSomething(){
// instance method
}
public static Test CreateCoolTest(){
return new Test();
}
}

Private constructors are used to prevent the creation of instances of a class when there are no instance fields or methods, such as the Math class, or when a method is called to obtain an instance of a class. If all the methods in the class are static, consider making the entire class static. For more information see Static Classes and Static Class Members.
class NLog
{
// Private Constructor:
private NLog() { }
public static double e = System.Math.E; //2.71828...
}
The following is an example of a class using a private constructor.
public class Counter
{
private Counter() { }
public static int currentCount;
public static int IncrementCount()
{
return ++currentCount;
}
}
class TestCounter
{
static void Main()
{
// If you uncomment the following statement, it will generate
// an error because the constructor is inaccessible:
// Counter aCounter = new Counter(); // Error
Counter.currentCount = 100;
Counter.IncrementCount();
System.Console.WriteLine("New count: {0}", Counter.currentCount);
}
}

While this link is related to java, I think it should help you understand the reason why as the idea is pretty much the same.
Private constructors prevent a class from being explicitly instantiated by callers. There are some common cases where a private constructor can be useful:
classes containing only static utility methods
classes containing only constants
type safe enumerations
singletons

You can use it with inheritance in a case where the arguments to the constructor for the base class are of different types to those of the child classes constructor but you still need the functionality of the base class in the child class eg. protected methods.
Generally though this should be avoided wherever possible as this is a bad form of inheritance to be using.

I'm late to the game, but reading through all the other answers, I don't see this usage mentioned:
I use private constructors in scenarios where I have multiple (public) constructors, and they all have some code in common. With constructor chaining, the code becomes really neat and DRY.
Remember, the private readonly variables can only be set in constructors, so I can't use a regular method.
Example:
public class MyClass
{
private readonly int _a;
private readonly int _b;
private readonly string _x;
public MyClass(int a, int b, string x)
: this(x)
{
_a = a;
_b = b;
}
public MyClass()
: this("(not set)")
{
// Nothing set here...
}
private MyClass(string x)
{
_x = x;
}
}

Basically you use private constructors when you are following a singleton design pattern. In this case, you have a static method defined inside the class that internally calls the private constructor.
So to create the instance of the class for the first time, the user calls the classname.static_method_name. In this method, since the class's object doesn't yet exist, the static method internally calls the private constructor and returns the class's instance.
If the class's instance already exists, then the static method simply returns the instance to the calling method.

And of course you can use private constructor to prevent subclassing.