We Keep Coding

Convert byte array of zeros and ones (0,1) to string of zeros and ones [duplicate]

What's the most efficient way to concatenate strings?

Rico Mariani, the .NET Performance guru, had an article on this very subject. It's not as simple as one might suspect. The basic advice is this:
If your pattern looks like:
x = f1(...) + f2(...) + f3(...) + f4(...)
that's one concat and it's zippy, StringBuilder probably won't help.
If your pattern looks like:
if (...) x += f1(...)
if (...) x += f2(...)
if (...) x += f3(...)
if (...) x += f4(...)
then you probably want StringBuilder.
Yet another article to support this claim comes from Eric Lippert where he describes the optimizations performed on one line + concatenations in a detailed manner.

The StringBuilder.Append() method is much better than using the + operator. But I've found that, when executing 1000 concatenations or less, String.Join() is even more efficient than StringBuilder.
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
sb.Append(someString);
The only problem with String.Join is that you have to concatenate the strings with a common delimiter.
Edit: as #ryanversaw pointed out, you can make the delimiter string.Empty.
string key = String.Join("_", new String[]
{ "Customers_Contacts", customerID, database, SessionID });

There are 6 types of string concatenations:
Using the plus (+) symbol.
Using string.Concat().
Using string.Join().
Using string.Format().
Using string.Append().
Using StringBuilder.
In an experiment, it has been proved that string.Concat() is the best way to approach if the words are less than 1000(approximately) and if the words are more than 1000 then StringBuilder should be used.
For more information, check this site.
string.Join() vs string.Concat()
The string.Concat method here is equivalent to the string.Join method invocation with an empty separator. Appending an empty string is fast, but not doing so is even faster, so the string.Concat method would be superior here.

From Chinh Do - StringBuilder is not always faster:
Rules of Thumb
When concatenating three dynamic string values or less, use traditional string concatenation.
When concatenating more than three dynamic string values, use StringBuilder.
When building a big string from several string literals, use either the # string literal or the inline + operator.
Most of the time StringBuilder is your best bet, but there are cases as shown in that post that you should at least think about each situation.

If you're operating in a loop, StringBuilder is probably the way to go; it saves you the overhead of creating new strings regularly. In code that'll only run once, though, String.Concat is probably fine.
However, Rico Mariani (.NET optimization guru) made up a quiz in which he stated at the end that, in most cases, he recommends String.Format.

Here is the fastest method I've evolved over a decade for my large-scale NLP app. I have variations for IEnumerable<T> and other input types, with and without separators of different types (Char, String), but here I show the simple case of concatenating all strings in an array into a single string, with no separator. Latest version here is developed and unit-tested on C# 7 and .NET 4.7.
There are two keys to higher performance; the first is to pre-compute the exact total size required. This step is trivial when the input is an array as shown here. For handling IEnumerable<T> instead, it is worth first gathering the strings into a temporary array for computing that total (The array is required to avoid calling ToString() more than once per element since technically, given the possibility of side-effects, doing so could change the expected semantics of a 'string join' operation).
Next, given the total allocation size of the final string, the biggest boost in performance is gained by building the result string in-place. Doing this requires the (perhaps controversial) technique of temporarily suspending the immutability of a new String which is initially allocated full of zeros. Any such controversy aside, however...
...note that this is the only bulk-concatenation solution on this page which entirely avoids an extra round of allocation and copying by the String constructor.
Complete code:
/// <summary>
/// Concatenate the strings in 'rg', none of which may be null, into a single String.
/// </summary>
public static unsafe String StringJoin(this String[] rg)
{
int i;
if (rg == null || (i = rg.Length) == 0)
return String.Empty;
if (i == 1)
return rg[0];
String s, t;
int cch = 0;
do
cch += rg[--i].Length;
while (i > 0);
if (cch == 0)
return String.Empty;
i = rg.Length;
fixed (Char* _p = (s = new String(default(Char), cch)))
{
Char* pDst = _p + cch;
do
if ((t = rg[--i]).Length > 0)
fixed (Char* pSrc = t)
memcpy(pDst -= t.Length, pSrc, (UIntPtr)(t.Length << 1));
while (pDst > _p);
}
return s;
}
[DllImport("MSVCR120_CLR0400", CallingConvention = CallingConvention.Cdecl)]
static extern unsafe void* memcpy(void* dest, void* src, UIntPtr cb);
I should mention that this code has a slight modification from what I use myself. In the original, I call the cpblk IL instruction from C# to do the actual copying. For simplicity and portability in the code here, I replaced that with P/Invoke memcpy instead, as you can see. For highest performance on x64 (but maybe not x86) you may want to use the cpblk method instead.

From this MSDN article:
There is some overhead associated with
creating a StringBuilder object, both
in time and memory. On a machine with
fast memory, a StringBuilder becomes
worthwhile if you're doing about five
operations. As a rule of thumb, I
would say 10 or more string operations
is a justification for the overhead on
any machine, even a slower one.
So if you trust MSDN go with StringBuilder if you have to do more than 10 strings operations/concatenations - otherwise simple string concat with '+' is fine.

Try this 2 pieces of code and you will find the solution.
static void Main(string[] args)
{
StringBuilder s = new StringBuilder();
for (int i = 0; i < 10000000; i++)
{
s.Append( i.ToString());
}
Console.Write("End");
Console.Read();
}
Vs
static void Main(string[] args)
{
string s = "";
for (int i = 0; i < 10000000; i++)
{
s += i.ToString();
}
Console.Write("End");
Console.Read();
}
You will find that 1st code will end really quick and the memory will be in a good amount.
The second code maybe the memory will be ok, but it will take longer... much longer.
So if you have an application for a lot of users and you need speed, use the 1st. If you have an app for a short term one user app, maybe you can use both or the 2nd will be more "natural" for developers.
Cheers.

It's also important to point it out that you should use the + operator if you are concatenating string literals.
When you concatenate string literals or string constants by using the + operator, the compiler creates a single string. No run time concatenation occurs.
How to: Concatenate Multiple Strings (C# Programming Guide)

Adding to the other answers, please keep in mind that StringBuilder can be told an initial amount of memory to allocate.
The capacity parameter defines the maximum number of characters that can be stored in the memory allocated by the current instance. Its value is assigned to the Capacity property. If the number of characters to be stored in the current instance exceeds this capacity value, the StringBuilder object allocates additional memory to store them.
If capacity is zero, the implementation-specific default capacity is used.
Repeatedly appending to a StringBuilder that hasn't been pre-allocated can result in a lot of unnecessary allocations just like repeatedly concatenating regular strings.
If you know how long the final string will be, can trivially calculate it, or can make an educated guess about the common case (allocating too much isn't necessarily a bad thing), you should be providing this information to the constructor or the Capacity property. Especially when running performance tests to compare StringBuilder with other methods like String.Concat, which do the same thing internally. Any test you see online which doesn't include StringBuilder pre-allocation in its comparisons is wrong.
If you can't make any kind of guess about the size, you're probably writing a utility function which should have its own optional argument for controlling pre-allocation.

Following may be one more alternate solution to concatenate multiple strings.
String str1 = "sometext";
string str2 = "some other text";
string afterConcate = $"{str1}{str2}";
string interpolation

Another solution:
inside the loop, use List instead of string.
List<string> lst= new List<string>();
for(int i=0; i<100000; i++){
...........
lst.Add(...);
}
return String.Join("", lst.ToArray());;
it is very very fast.

The most efficient is to use StringBuilder, like so:
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
sb.Append("string1");
sb.Append("string2");
...etc...
String strResult = sb.ToString();
#jonezy: String.Concat is fine if you have a couple of small things. But if you're concatenating megabytes of data, your program will likely tank.

System.String is immutable. When we modify the value of a string variable then a new memory is allocated to the new value and the previous memory allocation released. System.StringBuilder was designed to have concept of a mutable string where a variety of operations can be performed without allocation separate memory location for the modified string.

I've tested all the methods in this page and at the end I've developed my solution that is the fastest and less memory expensive.
Note: tested in Framework 4.8
[MemoryDiagnoser]
public class StringConcatSimple
{
private string
title = "Mr.", firstName = "David", middleName = "Patrick", lastName = "Callan";
[Benchmark]
public string FastConcat()
{
return FastConcat(
title, " ",
firstName, " ",
middleName, " ",
lastName);
}
[Benchmark]
public string StringBuilder()
{
var stringBuilder =
new StringBuilder();
return stringBuilder
.Append(title).Append(' ')
.Append(firstName).Append(' ')
.Append(middleName).Append(' ')
.Append(lastName).ToString();
}
[Benchmark]
public string StringBuilderExact24()
{
var stringBuilder =
new StringBuilder(24);
return stringBuilder
.Append(title).Append(' ')
.Append(firstName).Append(' ')
.Append(middleName).Append(' ')
.Append(lastName).ToString();
}
[Benchmark]
public string StringBuilderEstimate100()
{
var stringBuilder =
new StringBuilder(100);
return stringBuilder
.Append(title).Append(' ')
.Append(firstName).Append(' ')
.Append(middleName).Append(' ')
.Append(lastName).ToString();
}
[Benchmark]
public string StringPlus()
{
return title + ' ' + firstName + ' ' +
middleName + ' ' + lastName;
}
[Benchmark]
public string StringFormat()
{
return string.Format("{0} {1} {2} {3}",
title, firstName, middleName, lastName);
}
[Benchmark]
public string StringInterpolation()
{
return
$"{title} {firstName} {middleName} {lastName}";
}
[Benchmark]
public string StringJoin()
{
return string.Join(" ", title, firstName,
middleName, lastName);
}
[Benchmark]
public string StringConcat()
{
return string.
Concat(new String[]
{ title, " ", firstName, " ",
middleName, " ", lastName });
}
}
Yes, it use unsafe
public static unsafe string FastConcat(string str1, string str2, string str3, string str4, string str5, string str6, string str7)
{
var capacity = 0;
var str1Length = 0;
var str2Length = 0;
var str3Length = 0;
var str4Length = 0;
var str5Length = 0;
var str6Length = 0;
var str7Length = 0;
if (str1 != null)
{
str1Length = str1.Length;
capacity = str1Length;
}
if (str2 != null)
{
str2Length = str2.Length;
capacity += str2Length;
}
if (str3 != null)
{
str3Length = str3.Length;
capacity += str3Length;
}
if (str4 != null)
{
str4Length = str4.Length;
capacity += str4Length;
}
if (str5 != null)
{
str5Length = str5.Length;
capacity += str5Length;
}
if (str6 != null)
{
str6Length = str6.Length;
capacity += str6Length;
}
if (str7 != null)
{
str7Length = str7.Length;
capacity += str7Length;
}
string result = new string(' ', capacity);
fixed (char* dest = result)
{
var x = dest;
if (str1Length > 0)
{
fixed (char* src = str1)
{
Unsafe.CopyBlock(x, src, (uint)str1Length * 2);
x += str1Length;
}
}
if (str2Length > 0)
{
fixed (char* src = str2)
{
Unsafe.CopyBlock(x, src, (uint)str2Length * 2);
x += str2Length;
}
}
if (str3Length > 0)
{
fixed (char* src = str3)
{
Unsafe.CopyBlock(x, src, (uint)str3Length * 2);
x += str3Length;
}
}
if (str4Length > 0)
{
fixed (char* src = str4)
{
Unsafe.CopyBlock(x, src, (uint)str4Length * 2);
x += str4Length;
}
}
if (str5Length > 0)
{
fixed (char* src = str5)
{
Unsafe.CopyBlock(x, src, (uint)str5Length * 2);
x += str5Length;
}
}
if (str6Length > 0)
{
fixed (char* src = str6)
{
Unsafe.CopyBlock(x, src, (uint)str6Length * 2);
x += str6Length;
}
}
if (str7Length > 0)
{
fixed (char* src = str7)
{
Unsafe.CopyBlock(x, src, (uint)str7Length * 2);
}
}
}
return result;
}
You can edit the method and adapt it to your case. For example you can make it something like
public static unsafe string FastConcat(string str1, string str2, string str3 = null, string str4 = null, string str5 = null, string str6 = null, string str7 = null)

For just two strings, you definitely do not want to use StringBuilder. There is some threshold above which the StringBuilder overhead is less than the overhead of allocating multiple strings.
So, for more that 2-3 strings, use DannySmurf's code. Otherwise, just use the + operator.

It really depends on your usage pattern.
A detailed benchmark between string.Join, string,Concat and string.Format can be found here: String.Format Isn't Suitable for Intensive Logging
(This is actually the same answer I gave to this question)

It would depend on the code.
StringBuilder is more efficient generally, but if you're only concatenating a few strings and doing it all in one line, code optimizations will likely take care of it for you. It's important to think about how the code looks too: for larger sets StringBuilder will make it easier to read, for small ones StringBuilder will just add needless clutter.

How to reverse string in C# [duplicate]

I didn't get the problem - I was trying to do a simple action:
for(i = x.Length-1, j = 0 ; i >= 0 ; i--, j++)
{
backx[j] = x[i];
}
Both are declared:
String x;
String backx;
What is the problem ? It says the error in the title...
If there is a problem - is there another way to do that?
The result (As the name 'backx' hints) is that backx will contain the string X backwards.
P.S. x is not empty - it contains a substring from another string.

Strings are immutable: you can retrieve the character at a certain position, but you cannot change the character to a new one directly.
Instead you'll have to build a new string with the change. There are several ways to do this, but StringBuilder does the job in a similar fashion to what you already have:
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder(backx);
sb[j] = x[i];
backx = sb.ToString();
EDIT: If you take a look at the string public facing API, you'll see this indexer:
public char this[int index] { get; }
This shows that you can "get" a value, but because no "set" is available, you cannot assign values to that indexer.
EDITx2: If you're looking for a way to reverse a string, there are a few different ways, but here's one example with an explanation as to how it works: http://www.dotnetperls.com/reverse-string

String is immutable in .NET - this is why you get the error.
You can get a reverse string with LINQ:
string x = "abcd";
string backx = new string(x.Reverse().ToArray());
Console.WriteLine(backx); // output: "dcba"

String are immuatable. You have convert to Char Array and then you would be able to modify.
Or you can use StringBuilder.
for example
char[] wordArray = word.ToCharArray();

In C# strings are immutable. You cannot "set" Xth character to whatever you want. If yo uwant to construct a new string, or be able to "edit" a string, use i.e. StringBuilder class.

Strings are immutable in C#. You can read more about it here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/362314fe.aspx

Both the variables you have are string while you are treating them as if they were arrays (well, they are). Of course it is a valid statement to access characters from a string through this mechanism, you cannot really assign it that way.
Since you are trying to reverse a string, do take a look at this post. It has lot of information.

public static string ReverseName( string theName)
{
string revName = string.Empty;
foreach (char a in theName)
{
revName = a + revName;
}
return revName;
}
This is simple and does not involve arrays directly.

The code below simply swaps the index of each char in the string which enables you to only have to iterate half way through the original string which is pretty efficient if you're dealing with a lot of characters. The result is the original string reversed. I tested this with a string consisting of 100 characters and it executed in 0.0000021 seconds.
private string ReverseString(string testString)
{
int j = testString.Length - 1;
char[] charArray = new char[testString.Length];
for (int i = 0; i <= j; i++)
{
if (i != j)
{
charArray[i] = testString[j];
charArray[j] = testString[i];
}
j--;
}
return new string(charArray);
}

In case you need to replace e.g. index 2 in string use this (it is ugly, but working and is easily maintainbable)
V1 - you know what you want to put their. Here you saying in pseudocode string[2] = 'R';
row3String.Replace(row3String[2], 'R');
V2 - you need to put their char R or char Y. Here string[2] = 'R' if was 'Y' or if was not stay 'Y' (this one line if needs some form of else)
row3String.Replace(row3String[2], row3String[2].Equals('Y') ? 'R' : 'Y');

Convert a string into BASE62

I'm looking for the c# code to convert a string into BASE62, like this:
http://www.molengo.com/base62/title/base62-encoder-decoder
I need those encode and decode-methods for URL-Encoding.

Background on BINARY to TEXT Encoding schemes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base62
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base64
Good explanation of the BASE62 encoding scheme:
https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/1076295/Base-Encode
Try the C# libraries available here which adds some extension methods to allow you to convert a byte array to and from BASE62 (binary-to-text encoding schemes).
Plenty of base62 libraries on github, have a look:
https://github.com/JoyMoe/Base62.Net
https://github.com/ghost1face/base62
https://github.com/rossdempster/base62csharp
https://github.com/renmengye/base62-csharp (claims below that it doesn't work...raise any issues with them)
If your source data is contained in a "string" then you would first need to convert your "string" to a suitable byte array.
But be careful, to use the correct string to byte conversion call....as you may want the bytes to be the ASCII characters, or the Unicode byte stream etc i.e. Encoding.GetBytes(text) or System.Text.ASCIIEncoding.ASCII.GetBytes(text);, etc
byte[] bytestoencode = .....
string encodedasBASE62 = bytestoencode.ToBase62();
.....
byte[] bytesdecoded = encodedasBASE62.FromBase62();

You can do this for any base, this way:
static string ToBase62(ulong number)
{
var alphabet = "0123456789abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ";
var n = number;
ulong basis = 62;
var ret = "";
while (n > 0)
{
ulong temp = n % basis;
ret = alphabet[(int)temp] + ret;
n = (n / basis);
}
return ret;
}

not the real answer but hopefully this helps you to build a C# Version of it:
Javascript Base62 Encode/Decode:
http://x443.wordpress.com/2012/03/18/javascript-base62-encode-decode/

Best solution for an StringToInt function in C#

I were asked to do an StringToInt / Int.parse function on the white board in an job interview last week and did not perform very good but I came up with some sort of solution. Later when back home I made one in Visual Studion and I wonder if there are any better solution than mine below.
Have not bothred with any more error handling except checking that the string only contains digits.
private int StrToInt(string tmpString)
{
int tmpResult = 0;
System.Text.Encoding ascii = System.Text.Encoding.ASCII;
byte[] tmpByte = ascii.GetBytes(tmpString);
for (int i = 0; i <= tmpString.Length-1; i++)
{
// Check whatever the Character is an valid digit
if (tmpByte[i] > 47 && tmpByte[i] <= 58)
// Here I'm using the lenght-1 of the string to set the power and multiply this to the value
tmpResult += (tmpByte[i] - 48) * ((int)Math.Pow(10, (tmpString.Length-i)-1));
else
throw new Exception("Non valid character in string");
}
return tmpResult;
}

I'll take a contrarian approach.
public int? ToInt(this string mightBeInt)
{
int convertedInt;
if (int.TryParse(mightBeInt, out convertedInt))
{
return convertedInt;
}
return null;
}
After being told that this wasn't the point of the question, I'd argue that the question tests C coding skills, not C#. I'd further argue that treating strings as arrays of characters is a very bad habit in .NET, because strings are unicode, and in any application that might be globalized, making any assumption at all about character representations will get you in trouble, sooner or later. Further, the framework already provides a conversion method, and it will be more efficient and reliable than anything a developer would toss off in such a hurry. It's always a bad idea to re-invent framework functionality.
Then I would point out that by writing an extension method, I've created a very useful extension to the string class, something that I would actually use in production code.
If that argument loses me the job, I probably wouldn't want to work there anyway.
EDIT: As a couple of people have pointed out, I missed the "out" keyword in TryParse. Fixed.

Converting to a byte array is unnecessary, because a string is already an array of chars. Also, magic numbers such as 48 should be avoided in favor of readable constants such as '0'. Here's how I'd do it:
int result = 0;
for (int i = str.Length - 1, factor = 1; i >= 0; i--, factor *= 10)
result += (str[i] - '0') * factor;
For each character (starting from the end), add its numeric value times the correct power of 10 to the result. The power of 10 is calculated by multiplying it with 10 repeatedly, instead of unnecessarily using Math.Pow.

I think your solution is reasonably ok, but instead of doing math.pow, I would do:
tmpResult = 10 * tmpResult + (tmpByte[i] - 48);
Also, check the length against the length of tmpByte rather than tmpString. Not that it normally should matter, but it is rather odd to loop over one array while checking the length of another.
And, you could replace the for loop with a foreach statement.

If you want a simple non-framework using implementation, how 'bout this:
"1234".Aggregate(0, (s,c)=> c-'0'+10*s)
...and a note that you'd better be sure that the string consists solely of decimal digits before using this method.
Alternately, use an int? as the aggregate value to deal with error handling:
"12x34".Aggregate((int?)0, (s,c)=> c>='0'&&c<='9' ? c-'0'+10*s : null)
...this time with the note that empty strings evaluate to 0, which may not be most appropriate behavior - and no range checking or negative numbers are supported; both of which aren't hard to add but require unpretty looking wordy code :-).
Obviously, in practice you'd just use the built-in parsing methods. I actually use the following extension method and a bunch of nearly identical siblings in real projects:
public static int? ParseAsInt32(this string s, NumberStyles style, IFormatProvider provider) {
int val;
if (int.TryParse(s, style, provider, out val)) return val;
else return null;
}
Though this could be expressed slightly shorter using the ternary ? : operator doing so would mean relying on side-effects within an expression, which isn't a boon to readability in my experience.

Just because i like Linq:
string t = "1234";
var result = t.Select((c, i) => (c - '0') * Math.Pow(10, t.Length - i - 1)).Sum();

I agree with Cyclon Cat, they probably want someone who will utilize existing functionality.
But I would write the method a little bit different.
public int? ToInt(this string mightBeInt)
{
int number = 0;
if (Int32.TryParse(mightBeInt, out number))
return number;
return null;
}
Int32.TryParse does not allow properties to be given as out parameter.

I was asked this question over 9000 times on interviews :) This version is capable of handling negative numbers and handles other conditions very well:
public static int ToInt(string s)
{
bool isNegative = false, gotAnyDigit = false;
int result = 0;
foreach (var ch in s ?? "")
{
if(ch == '-' && !(gotAnyDigit || isNegative))
{
isNegative = true;
}
else if(char.IsDigit(ch))
{
result = result*10 + (ch - '0');
gotAnyDigit = true;
}
else
{
throw new ArgumentException("Not a number");
}
}
if (!gotAnyDigit)
throw new ArgumentException("Not a number");
return isNegative ? -result : result;
}
and a couple of lazy tests:
[TestFixture]
public class Tests
{
[Test]
public void CommonCases()
{
foreach (var sample in new[]
{
new {e = 123, s = "123"},
new {e = 110, s = "000110"},
new {e = -011000, s = "-011000"},
new {e = 0, s = "0"},
new {e = 1, s = "1"},
new {e = -2, s = "-2"},
new {e = -12223, s = "-12223"},
new {e = int.MaxValue, s = int.MaxValue.ToString()},
new {e = int.MinValue, s = int.MinValue.ToString()}
})
{
Assert.AreEqual(sample.e, Impl.ToInt(sample.s));
}
}
[Test]
public void BadCases()
{
var samples = new[] { "1231a", null, "", "a", "-a", "-", "12-23", "--1" };
var errCount = 0;
foreach (var sample in samples)
{
try
{
Impl.ToInt(sample);
}
catch(ArgumentException)
{
errCount++;
}
}
Assert.AreEqual(samples.Length, errCount);
}
}

How should I convert a number with a text suffix to an integer in c#?

What's the cleanest/best way in C# to convert something like 400AMP or 6M to an integer? I won't always know what the suffix is, and I just want whatever it is to go away and leave me with the number.

You could use a regular expression:
Regex reg = new Regex("[0-9]*");
int result = Convert.ToInt32(reg.Match(input));

Okay, here's a long-winded solution which should be reasonably fast. It's similar to Guffa's middle answer, but I've put the conditions inside the body of the loop as I think that's simpler (and allows us to fetch the character just once). It's a matter of personal taste really.
It deliberately doesn't limit the number of digits that it matches, because if the string is an integer which overflows Int32, I think I'd rather see an exception than just a large integer :)
Note that this also handles negative numbers, which I don't think any of the other solutions so far do...
using System;
class Test
{
static void Main()
{
Console.WriteLine(ParseLeadingInt32("-1234AMP"));
Console.WriteLine(ParseLeadingInt32("+1234AMP"));
Console.WriteLine(ParseLeadingInt32("1234AMP"));
Console.WriteLine(ParseLeadingInt32("-1234"));
Console.WriteLine(ParseLeadingInt32("+1234"));
Console.WriteLine(ParseLeadingInt32("1234"));
}
static int ParseLeadingInt32(string text)
{
// Declared before loop because we need the
// final value
int i;
for (i=0; i < text.Length; i++)
{
char c = text[i];
if (i==0 && (c=='-' || c=='+'))
{
continue;
}
if (char.IsDigit(c))
{
continue;
}
break;
}
return int.Parse(text.Substring(0, i));
}
}

It's possibly not the cleanest method, but it's reasonably simple (a one liner) and I would imagine faster than a regex (uncompiled, for sure).
var str = "400AMP";
var num = Convert.ToInt32(str.Substring(0, str.ToCharArray().TakeWhile(
c => char.IsDigit(c)).Count()));
Or as an extension method:
public static int GetInteger(this string value)
{
return Convert.ToInt32(str.Substring(0, str.ToCharArray().TakeWhile(
c => char.IsDigit(c)).Count()));
}
Equivalently, you could construct the numeric string from the result of the TakeWhile function, as such:
public static int GetInteger(this string value)
{
return new string(str.ToCharArray().TakeWhile(
c => char.IsNumber(c)).ToArray());
}
Haven't benchmarked them, so I wouldn't know which is quicker (though I'd very much suspect the first). If you wanted to get better performance, you would just convert the LINQ (extension method calls on enumerables) to a for loop.
Hope that helps.

There are several options...
Like using a regular expression:
int result = int.Parse(Regex.Match(input, #"^\d+").Groups[0].Value);
Among the fastest; simply looping to find digits:
int i = 0;
while (i < input.Length && Char.IsDigit(input, i)) i++;
int result = int.Parse(input.Substring(0, i));
Use LastIndexOfAny to find the last digit:
int i = input.LastIndexOfAny("0123456789".ToCharArray()) + 1;
int result = int.Parse(input.Substring(0, i));
(Note: breaks with strings that has digits after the suffix, like "123asdf123".)
Probably fastest; parse it yourself:
int i = 0;
int result = 0;
while (i < input.Length) {
char c = input[i];
if (!Char.IsDigit(c)) break;
result *= 10;
result += c - '0';
i++;
}

If all you want to do is remove an unknown postfix from what would otherwise be an int, here is how I would do it:
I like a utility static method I call IsInt(string possibleInt) which will, as the name implies, return True if the string will parse into an int. You could write this same static method into your utility class (if it's not there already) and try:
`string foo = "12345SomePostFix";
while (!Tools.ToolBox.IsInt(foo))
{
foo = foo.Remove(foo.Length - 1);
}
int fooInt = int.Parse(foo);`