We Keep Coding

C# in Unity 3D/2D: Am I required to use Classes for every script?

A little background: I'm new to C# and Unity, but catching on very quickly. I'm also hoping this thread will not spark a debate about the merits of classes and abstract coding, as that debate is unrelated and well-worn (and unnecessarily heated); so please keep that in mind.
I'm simply wondering if every C# script in Unity is required to have a main class in any way or for any reason.
Or instead, can methods, and variables can be written outside of a class in a blank file (with namespaces) to be used in a video game?
I'm asking because, when I create a new C# script, it seems to force a class into my file and I'm afraid of breaking things.
I hope to keep code abstraction to a minimum, and the current project
I'm working on has several situations where a class is not needed, or
only one instance of the class will be used. I'd like to simply avoid
using classes in those cases.

In terms of declaring/defining variables and methods outside of any class, you can't really do that in C#. It just isn't how the language was designed (the answers to the question I linked to expand on that idea, so I won't duplicate them here).
You're not without options, though; if you have a number of variables or methods that need to be accessible from different places and don't need an object reference, you can make them static, so you won't need to instantiate the class to make use of them:
public class UtilityClass
{
public static float GravityConstant = 3.51f;
public static string GameName = "MyFirstGame";
public static float CalculateProduct(float a, float b)
{
return a * b;
}
}
Then, you can reference the class's methods/members by accessing it through its name:
float product = UtilityClass.CalculateProduct(6, 1.5f);
An example of where you might use this pattern is when defining mathematical formulae which aren't included in Unity's Mathf methods, and using them in multiple classes.
Additional note: Creating a new C# script through Unity's editor UI will default to declaring a class of the same name that inherits from Monobehaviour. You can alter it to remove the inheritance from Monobehaviour if you don't need any of the methods/attributes of the class, which avoids unnecessary overhead. One example for this would be with a static class that you never need to instantiate.

Yes, you are.
In C#, things like global variables and functions just do not exist. Everything must be contained in a class.
"But what should I do in order to declare some stuff that can be accessed everywhere, without creating an object?" you asked. There is something called the static modifier. You can access the methods or variables or fields or properties marked with this modifier without creating an object of that class.
You just add the word static in a method and it becomes a static method! How simple!
Let's see an example.
I have this non-static method:
public class MyClass {
public void DoStuff () {
}
}
I can call it like this:
var obj = new MyClass();
obj.DoStuff();
But if I modify it with static,
public class MyClass {
public static void DoStuff () {
}
}
I can call it like this:
MyClass.DoStuff();
How convenient!
Note:
Please do not misuse the static modifier! Only use it when it makes sense! When? When the method is a utility method or when the method does not belong to individual objects but the class itself.

First of All you need to check where Methods define as offical
docs stated
"Methods are declared in a class or struct by specifying the access
level such as public or private...."
So, Method should be declare in a Class or struct and A given class
should be, ideally, responsible for just one task.(see also)
Your this question "Or instead, can methods, and variables can be
written outside of a class in a blank file (with namespaces) to be
used in a video game?" answer is hidden in the below question.
Can there be stand alone functions in C# without a Class?
No. Make them static and put them in a static utility class if they indeed don't fit within any of your existing classes.
You have to make a class in order to use methods or its variable
either instance class or static class.
Am I required to use Classes for every script? Every script means you required a class. Unity Support Component Based
Architectural Design and if you require any script related
work then you definitely require a script component which means a
class require.
Finally for singleton, thanks to Unity3dWiki great detail
available. I think you will be feel comfortable to code and writing
class if you keep in mind component based architecture of Unity3d.
Singleton vs Static: I will also recommend to check this: Why do you use a Singleton class
if a Static class serves the purpose
Hope it will help.
[Note: If this helpful Any one can update this answer for future reference and use].

Is there any point to making public-facing methods for private methods in a class?

Sorry if the question sounds confusing. What I mean is that if I have a class that has a method that does a bunch of calculations and then returns a value, I can either make that method public (which gives my other classes access), or I can make it private and make a public get method.
Something like this:
public publicmethod{
return privatemethod();
}
private privatemethod{
//do stuff
return value;
}
Is this a futile exercise or does it provide additional program security?

Well, there is no additional security here. However, such a usage can sometimes make sense.
For example, the private and public method may have different semantics.
// base class
public virtual BuyFood()
{
BuyPizza();
BuyCoke();
}
private void BuyPizza()
{
// ...
}
// derived class
public override void BuyFood()
{
BuyChopSuey();
}
private void BuyChopSuey()
{
// ...
}
So your implementation is just calling to a private method -- but what is important, you expose the semantics: your BuyFood operation is just BuyChopSuey(). Your code says: "in this class, buying food is just buying chop suey" in a clear way. You are able to add BuyTsingtaoBeer() into BuyFood() any time without changing the semantics of the both methods.

It is completely redundant. It does not provide anything except another name for the same thing and another indirection for readers to follow. Simply make a single implementation, and make it public. On the same note, getX() { return x; } setX(T newX) { x = newX; } does not encapsulate anything, at best it's future-proofing.
You may end up implementing a particular function required by an interface in a single line, largely delegating to (possibly private) methods which exist for other good reasons. This is different, and more justified (but again, if it's only return someMethod(); you should probably abolish the private implementation and assume the common name). A particular case if when you need two implement two methods which do the same thing (e.g. from separate interfaces).

I think either way is fine, it's more a matter of style assuming the method doesn't change the state of the class. If you have a class that has a bunch of properties and very few methods, it probably makes more sense to define another property. If you have a lot of methods in the class but few properties, then a method is more consistent with your overall class design.
If the method changes a bunch of other class variables than I'd expose it as a public method instead of a property.
I don't think either way, property or method, is necessarily more secure. It depends on what checks you do - is the caller allowed to perform the calculation? Are all variables used in the calculations within acceptable ranges? Etc. All of these checks can be performed whether you are using a property or a method.

Well, actually the question is What code do I want to be able to call this method?
Any code in general, even from other assemblies? Make the method public.
Any code from the same assembly? Make it internal.
Only code from this class? Make it private.
Having a private method directly aliased to a public method only makes the private method callable from the outside, which contradicts its private status.

If the method only does some calculation and doesn't use or change anything in the object, make it a public static method:
public static CalculationMethod(int input) {
//do stuff
return value;
}
That way any code can use the method without having the create an instance of the class:
int result = ClassName.CalculationMethod(42);
Instead of public consider internal, which would give access only to code in the same assembly.

Using Static method and variables - Good vs Bad

I am developing C# and asp.net web application.
I have general class called utilities, I have lot of public and static variables in this public utilities class.
Since this number is gradually increasing, I want to know is it good practice to store utilities methods and variable as public static.
Example of my code
public class utilities
{
public static string utilVariable1 = "Myvalue";
public static string utilVariable2 = "Myvalue";
public static string utilVariable3 = "Myvalue";
:
public static string utilVariableN = "Myvalue";
public static string UtilMethod1()
{
//do something
}
public static string UtilMethod2()
{
//do something
}
public static string UtilMethodN()
{
//do something
}
}

There's nothing inherently wrong with static classes, although they should typically not have state (fields). Your use of public static fields indicates that this is not the case, so it seems like you are using abusing the static keyword slightly. If your class needs to have state, then it should be a normal, non-static class, and you should create instances of it. Otherwise, the only public fields visible on the class should be const (consider the Math class, with constants such as Math.PI - a good use of static methods and fields).
Another consideration is cohesion. Methods typically exist grouped in one class because they are closely related in one way or another. Again, the Math class is a good example; everything in there has to do with maths. At some point, you would want to split your global utility class into multiple smaller, more focussed ones. See Wikipedia for some examples on cohesion, it sounds like your usage falls under "Coincidental cohesion (worst)".

There's nothing wrong with this approach for methods, but variables should really be const if they're going to be static and public. If they are subject to change then you should look at a different structure for variables that are being manipulated by more than one component.
Personally, I'm a fan of the Singleton pattern.

static is not a bad thing per se. Methods that don't need to access any member variables or methods should always be declared static. That way the reader of the code sees immediately that a method won't change member variables or methods.
For variables the situation is different, you should avoid static variables unless you make them const. Public static variables are globally accessible and can easily raise issues if multiple threads access the same variable without proper synchronization.
It is hard to tell for your case if it's a good or a bad idea to use statics, because you didn't provide any context information.

Creating one class to do it all is not a good practice, and it's recommended to structure your project, and keep stuff that belongs to each other separated from the randomness.
A great example of this was a project I took over from a co-worker. There was 1 class, called Methods. It contained over 10K lines of methods.
I then categorized them into approx. 20 files, and the structure was restored.
Most of the methods from that project were validating user input, which can easily be moved into a static class Validation.
One awful thing I notice is the mutable public and static variables. This is bad for several reasons:
Incorrect behavior, because if some method changes this, while it isn't supposed to do that, it causes other methods to behave improperly, and it's really hard to track down/debug.
Concurrency, how are we going to ensure thread safety? Do we let it over to all methods that work with that? Say if it's a value type, what will we let them lock on? What if some method forgets to make it thread safe?
Expand-ability (I hope you understand what I mean with that), if you have for example a static class data that stores all these public static variables, that you shouldn't have. It can store that once, if for example you might change your application structure a bit, and say want to make it possible to load two projects in the same screen, then it's very difficult to make that possible, because you can't create two instances of a static class. There is only one class, and it'll remain like that.
For number 3 a cleaner solution would be to store either a list of instances of a data class, or to store a reference to the default and/or active data class.
Static member, and private static members (or protected) are a good practice, as long as you don't make huge classes, and the methods are related.
Public and static variables are okay if they're not really variable.
The two ways to do this is by marking them constant (const modifier) or readonly (readonly modifier).
Example:
public class UtilitiesClass
{
internal UtilitiesClass() { }
public void UtilityMethod1()
{
// Do something
}
}
// Method 1 (readonly):
public static readonly UtilitiesClass Utilities = new UtilitiesClass();
// Method 2 (property):
private static UtilitiesClass _utilities = new UtilitiesClass();
public static UtilitiesClass Utilities
{
get { return _utilities; }
private set { _utilities = value; }
}
The advantage of method 1 is that you don't have to worry about thread-safety at all, the value can't change.
Method 2 is not thread-safe (though it's not difficult to make it that), but it has the advantage of allowing the static class itself to change the reference to the utilities class.

No, it is not a good practice for large applications, especially not if your static variables are mutable, as they are then effectively global variables, a code smell which Object Oriented Programming was supposed to "solve".
At the very least start by grouping your methods into smaller classes with associated functionality - the Util name indicates nothing about the purpose of your methods and smells of an incoherent class in itself.
Second, you should always consider if a method is better implemented as a (non-static) method on the same object where the data that is passed as argument(s) to the method lives.
Finally, if your application is quite large and/or complex, you can consider solutions such as an Inversion of Control container, which can reduce the dependency on global state. However, ASP.Net webforms is notoriously hard to integrate into such an environment, as the framework is very tightly coupled in itself.

C# Private members visibility

We have a Student class in our business model. something struck me as strange, if we are manipulating one student from another student, the students private members are visible, why is this?
class Program {
static void Main(string[] args) {
Student s1 = new Student();
Student s2 = new Student();
s1.SeePrivatePropertiesAndFields(s2);
}
}
public class Student {
private String _studentsPrivateField;
public Student() {
_studentsPrivateField = DateTime.Now.Ticks.ToString();
}
public void SeePrivatePropertiesAndFields(Student anotherStudent) {
//this seems like these should be private, even from the same class as it is a different instantiation
Console.WriteLine(anotherStudent._studentsPrivateField);
}
}
Can i have some thoughts on the design considerations/implications of this. It seems that you can't hide information from your siblings. Is there a way to mark a field or member as hidden from other instances of the same class?

There's an easy way to ensure this:
Don't mess around with private members of other instances of the same class.
Seriously - you're the one writing the Student code.

The easiest way to ensure this is to program to an interface, such as:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
IStudent s1 = new Student();
IStudent s2 = new Student();
s1.ExamineStudentsMembers(s1);
}
}
public interface IStudent
{
void ExamineStudentsMembers(IStudent anotherStudent);
}
public class Student : IStudent
{
private string _studentsPrivateMember;
public Student()
{
_studentsPrivateMember = DateTime.Now.Ticks.ToString();
}
public void ExamineStudentsMembers(IStudent anotherStudent)
{
Console.WriteLine(anotherStudent._studentsPrivateMember);
}
}
This will no longer compile due to ExamineStudentsMembers trying to access a private field.

If you are writing the class, you have complete control over it, so if you don't want one object to be able to modify another, don't write in that functionality.
Classes will often use private variables in other instances to implement efficient comparison and copy functions.

Private just means that the member (field/method/etc.) can be accessed only from the within the code of the parent type. From CSharpOnline
Private members of multiple instances are visible and can be invoked. This comes in handy when you are implementing a "copy constructor" or a "clone" method on your type, where the argument is an instance of the same type. If the designers would have made private fields inaccessible, then you may have to create a bunch of getter methods just for clone/copy to get at them. IMHO, I like it better the way it is. Within the same type, Reading another object's state isn't that bad as writing to it though (which could be a DONT-code-convention for you/your team.)

Accessing a sibling's private data may seem wrong when phrased like:
public void ExamineStudentsMembers(Student anotherStudent) {
//this seems very wrong
Console.WriteLine(anotherStudent._studentsPrivateMember);
}
However, it doesn't seem so odd for methods which require this sort of functionality. What methods require accessing a sibling's private data? Comparison methods (in particular equals) and objects in a data structure (say a tree or linked list).
Comparison methods often compare private data directly rather than just the public data.
For a class of nodes that make up a linked list, graph or tree, being able to access a sibling's private data is exactly what is needed. Code in the know (part of the class) can tinker around with the data structure, but code outside of the data structure cannot touch the internals.
It is interesting to note that these two cases are less common in day-to-day programming than when this language feature were first developed. Back in 1990s and early 2000s, in C++ it would have been much more common to build custom data structures and comparison methods. Perhaps it is a good time to reconsider private members.

i like the second point, you can look, but dont touch those private members.
it's funny you should say that, i knew a teacher once and he said he often had a problem deciding what classes it was ok to look at the members and which ones he could actually have a play with.

An object is just a piece of data; the class contains the functionality. A member method is just a nice trick the compiler plays; it's really more like a static method with an implied argument (sort of like extension methods). With that in mind, protecting objects from each other doesn't make any sense; you can only protect classes from each other. So it's natural that it works that way.

No, this is necessary, the method code is not specific to the instance, it is only specific to the type of the object. (virtual methods) or the declared type of the variable (for non-virtual methods). The non-static fields, on the other hand, are instance specific... That's where you have instance-level isolation.
The only difference between a static method and a non-static method is that the static method is not allowed to access other instance based (non-static) methods or fields. Any method that CAN be made static without modification will not be affected in any way by making it static, except to force compiler to throw errors anywhere it was called using instance-based syntax.

If you intend to examine a given student's information then I would change the method to be static:
public static void ExamineStudentsMembers(Student student)
{
Console.WriteLine(student._studentsPrivateMember);
}
You would then use Student.ExamineStudentsMembers(s1). Using s1.ExamineStudentsMembers(s2) would be invalid.
If this isn't the intended purpose I would rewrite the method as:
public void ExamineStudentsMembers()
{
Console.WriteLine(_studentsPrivateMember);
}
The above would then be used by writing s1.ExamineStudentsMembers()

Private members are to hide implementation details from clients. The clients should only see the interface (public methods / fields / properties).
The purpose is not to protect the programmer from himself.
This is also NOT a security feature because you can always access private fields via reflection.
It's really to separate interface & implementation (black box design), and clients programming against a contract (all public fields).
For example if you have a public get property, it could access some private field directly, or it could calculate the value from some other fields.
The purpose is, the client only knows the contract (the public property) and the implementation can be changed without affecting the client

Object scope does not ever imply security - ever! It is role of the OS to provide runtime security. It is a bug to design a system that relies on language specific object scope to limit runtime object instance data access. If this were not the case, then all non OO languages are, by definition, not secure.

Standalone functions in ASP.net

Never seen this done in asp.net, but never the less, can I define functions without being part of the class?
What I would like to have is a utility library. Currently I have Utils class and every time I need to use it for things like populating drop down lists i have to create and init the Utils() object...any way around that hassle aside from declaring the class static which I would rather not do as I access session in it?
I am using c#, not VB.
Thanks

There's no way to have methods outside of classes.
The typical solution in your case is to create a Utility class full of static methods...that way you don't have to worry about creating an instance of the class to utilize its methods.
And like Joel mentioned...you can still access the session from a static method.

You can always use Extension Methods.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb383977.aspx
You can then add the methods on to the existing objects.
You could also create a base class which all your pages inherit from and have that contain the methods you need. It's still part of a class, but you don't need to instantiate a new one, or use static methods.

You can still access Session variables in a static class. One way might be like this:
public static class Utils
{
private static HttpSessionState Session
{
get { return HttpContext.Current.Session; }
}
public static string DoThing(string input)
{
// here you can access session variables like you're used to:
Session["foo"] = input;
}
}

You could have all you pages derive from a BasePage class and put all of your util methods (or wrappers to them) into the base page class

If the class has state then leave it alone. Alternatively, take your state as parameters and then make it static.

You can access the Session variables using HttpContext.Current.Session[], and you can do this from any class (In fact, in many applications I have that use Session variables, I encapsulate all of my session variables in their own class).
Having said that, there is no way to have a method outside of a class, and there really isn't a [good] reason to do so.