We Keep Coding

Is there any difference between static and singleton class performance(Memory Management)

I read this article about https://stackoverflow.com/ and note this sentence:
Heavy usage of static classes and methods, for simplicity and better
performance.
My question is,Is there any difference between static and singleton performance?
And if there is why?

There's little difference. As always, if you're in doubt, profile - but I severely doubt you'll find anything interesting.
Static methods have three main advantages:
No need to pass the implicit this
No virtual method calls
No null-checking
Virtual method calls are avoided by not using the virtual keyword and by not implementing interfaces. They are also evaluated in runtime and optimized away if possible.
Passing this may be tricky for structs, but that's not how you'd usually implement a singleton. For a normal reference type, this is likely a simple pass-by-register reference.
The last point should also be obvious - due to the contracts in C#, if you try to call a method on a null reference, you're supposed to get a NullReferenceException - even if the method doesn't actually use this at all.
However, performance isn't the only useful metric. If you think about it, static classes and static methods are little different from functional modules and functions. I think this is what the original article is alluding to the most - if done right, functional programming is a lot simpler than trying to fit your code into some arbitrarily defined classes. I'd assume that while there's plenty of static methods (functions), there's few static fields - and state changes can be tricky to manage and understand, if they get out of hand. This applies doubly for shared state, and you'd be hard pressed to find some state that is more shared than a public static field.
Again - performance is just one thing. Software development is a balancing act, and it doesn't do to focus on one metric. If you focus too much on (low level) performance, you might be missing out on maintenance and readability, and even on high level performance optimizations. If it's crucial to avoid overheads, go ahead - use static fields and static methods. If you need to handle 10k requests in parallel, you'll likely need a lot of low-level optimizations. But make sure you know it's usually a trade-off.

If you're implementing your singleton correctly then i would say there is no performance difference.
The only difference is with a standard static you leave the system open to creating new instances whenever you want, where as a Singleton enforces that it is only created once.

Singleton Service classes in c++

Coming from a .NET/C# Background and having solid exposure to PRISM, I really like the idea of having a CompositionContainer to get just this one instance of a class whenever it is needed.
As through the ServiceLocator this instance is also globally accessible this pretty much sums up to the Singleton Pattern.
Now, my current Project is in c++, and I'm at the point of deciding how to manage plugins (external dll loading and stuff like that) for the program.
In C# I'd create a PluginService, export it as shared and channel everything through that one instance (the members would basically only amount to one list, holding the plugins and a bunch of methods). In c++ obviously I don't have a CompositionContainer or a ServiceLocator.
I could probably realize a basic version of this, but whatever I imagine involves using Singletons or Global variables for that matter. The general concern about this seems to be though: DON'T EVER DO GLOBALS AND MUCH LESS SINGLETONS.
what am I to do?
(and what I'm also interested in: is Microsoft here giving us a bad example of how to code, or is this an actual case of where singletons are the right choice?)

There's really no difference between C# and C++ in terms of whether globals and singletons are "good" or "bad".
The solution you outline is equally bad (or good) in both C# and C++.
What you seem to have discovered is simply that different people have different opinions. Some C# developers like to use singletons for something like this. And some C++ programmers feel the same way.
Some C++ programmers think a singleton is a terrible idea, and... some C# programmers feel the same way. :)
Microsoft has given many bad examples of how to code. Never ever accept their sample code as "good practices" just because it says Microsoft on the box. What matters is the code, not the name behind it.
Now, my main beef with singletons is not the global aspect of them.
Like most people, I generally dislike and distrust globals, but I won't say they should never be used. There are situations where it's just more convenient to make something globally accessible. They're not common (and I think most people still overuse globals), but they exist.
But the real problem with singletons is that they enforce an unnecessary and often harmful constraint on your code: they prevent you from creating multiple instances of an object, as though you, when you write the class, know how it's going to be used better than the actual user does.
When you write a class, say, a PluginService as you mentioned in a comment, you certainly have some idea of how you plan it to be used. You probably think "an instance of it should be globally accessible (which is debatable, because many classes should not access the pluginservice, but let's assume that we do want it to be global for now). And you probably think "I can't imagine why I'd want to have two instances".
But the problem is when you take this assumption and actively prevent the creation of two instances.
What if, two months from now, you find a need for creating two PluginServices? If you'd taken the easy route when you wrote the class, and had not built unnecessary constraints into it, then you could also take the easy route now, and simply create two instances.
But if you took the difficult path of writing extra code to prevent multiple instances from being created, then you now again have to take the difficult path: now you have to go back and change your class.
Don't build limitations into your code unless you have a reason: if it makes your job easier, go ahead and do it. And if it prevents harmful misuse of the class, go ahead and do it.
But in the singleton case it does neither of those: you create extra work for yourself, in order to prevent uses that might be perfectly legitimate.
You may be interested in reading this blog post I wrote to answer the question of singletons.
But to answer the specific question of how to handle your specific situation, I would recommend one of two approaches:
the "purist" approach would be to create a ServiceLocator which is not global. Pass it to those who need to locate services. In my experience, you'll probably find that this is much easier than it sounds. You tend to find out that it's not actually needed in as many different places as you thought it'd be. And it gives you a motivation to decouple the code, to minimize dependencies, to ensure that only those who really have a genuine need for the ServiceLocator get access to it. That's healthy.
or there's the pragmatic approach: create a single global instance of the ServiceLocator. Anyone who needs it can use it, and there's never any doubt about how to find it -- it's global, after all. But don't make it a singleton. Let it be possible to create other instances. If you never need to create another instance, then simply don't do it. But this leaves the door open so that if you do end up needing another instance, you can create it.
There are many situations where you end up needing multiple instances of a class that you thought would only ever need one instance. Configuration/settings objects, loggers or wrappers around some piece of hardware are all things people often call out as "this should obviously be a singleton, it makes no sense to have multiple instances", and in each of these cases, they're wrong. There are many cases where you want multiple instances of just such classes.
But the most universally applicable scenario is simply: testing.
You want to ensure that your ServiceLocator works. So you want to test it.
If it's singleton, that's really hard to do. A good test should run in a pristine, isolated environment, unaffected by previous tests. But a singleton lives for the duration of the application, so if you have multiple tests of the ServiceLocator, they'll all run on the same "dirty" instance, so each test might affect the state seen by the next test.
Instead, the tests should each create a new, clean ServiceLocator, so they can control exactly which state it is in. And to do that, you need to be able to create instances of the class.
So don't make it a singleton. :)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with singletons when they're
appropriate. I have my doubts concerning CompositionContainer (but
I'm not sure I understand what it is actually supposed to do), but
ServiceLocator is the sort of thing that will generally be a singleton
in any well designed application. Having two or more ServiceLocator
will result in the program not functionning as it should (because a
service will be registered in one of them, and you'll be looking it up
in another); enforcing this programatically is positive, at least if you
favor robust programming. In addition, in C++, the singleton idiom is
used to control the order of initialization; unless you make
ServiceLocator a singleton, you can't use it in the constructor of any
object with static lifetime.
While there is a small group of very vocal anti-singleton fanatics,
within the larger C++ community, you'll find that the consensus favors
singletons, in certain very restricted cases. They're easily abused
(but then, so are templates, dynamic allocation and polymorphism), but
they do solve one particular problem very nicely, and it would be silly
to forgo them for some arbitrary dogmatic reason when they're the best
solution for the problem.

When to go for static classes?

Whenever I code a solution to something I tend to either use a lot of static classes or none at all. For example in a recent project I had to send a class with some string/bool/datetime data through a number of hoops and the only thing that wasn't static was this data-holding class. Everything else (3 pretty hefty classes with different processing responsibilities) were static.
I think what I'm asking for here is some input on when (and why) I should avoid using static classes for these "process X, output Y" cases. Is it ok to always use them as long as they work or am I shooting myself in the foot concerning scalability, plugin-support etc?
I hope this is an OK question to ask here. I'm not asking for an argument concerning whether or not static classes are "better" - just input on when I should avoid using them.

Most of the code i write:
Uses dependency injection/IoC
And needs to be mockable/testable
So i just use objects for almost everything.
I do still use statics for things like:
Extension methods
Constants
Helper/Utility methods (pre extension methods)
operator methods

Still the two questions remain a bit the same. My main concern on static classes is inheritance and accessability.
When using a static class (public in the worst case), everyone is able to access your processes and functions. Which is most of the time not what you want. It is too easy for some object to get to your functions and do some modifications. Therefore, dependency injection is nice to use. (Pass the object you want to modify in the parameters, which is in this case your process-object).
To prevent others from manipulating your process-object, why not try to use some kind of singleton pattern (or even an ex-singleton pattern), so there is actually a real object to talk to? You can pass the object into the parameters of your functions if something should be modified. And then you can just have one manager that holds your process-object. Others shouldn't get to the object.
Static classes are also hard to inherit. Overriding static methods seems a bit strange. So if you are sure that the process will not be the only process, and some more specific processes will be created by you, then a static class should be avoided as well.

Static classes are commonly used for small data containers and general methods. It should not contain large data until unless required. These classes are non-extensible.

I would recommend you to have a method as static if it has only one method. In this case creating an instance of the class hardly makes sense
You can have static properties in case you want a field to act somewhat like global variable. This is a design pattern which matches Singleton pattern
I use static properties for tracking state which needs to be consumed by the whole application.
For rest everything related to my work objects is the way to go (with minor exceptions obviously)

Making extensive use of statics is like puting your application into concrete. They should be avoided except for very particular situations like utility/helper methods that are very general. A nice list was posted in a previous answer by djeeg.

The main problem I see with using static classes as you describe is that the dependencies are hardwired. If class A needs to use features from class B, it must explicitly know about it, which results in tight coupling.
While this is not always a problem, as your code grows you might find it more difficult to alter the behavior of the program to accommodate new requirements. For example, if you want to make the behavior of the program configurable, it will be difficult because that will require explicit if / switch in the code. Otherwise, you could simply make a class depend on an interface and swap implementations.
In short, you are preventing yourself from using well known design patterns that are known good solutions to solve issues you will likely encounter.

I usually try to avoid using static methods in classes. If I need to access some data globally I would at least wrap a class in a singleton. For larger projects I would recommend using an Inversion of Control container to instantiate and inject your "global" instances in a Singleton way.

Utility classes.. Good or Bad?

I have been reading that creating dependencies by using static classes/singletons in code, is bad form, and creates problems ie. tight coupling, and unit testing.
I have a situation where I have a group of url parsing methods that have no state associated with them, and perform operations using only the input arguments of the method. I am sure you are familiar with this kind of method.
In the past I would have proceeded to create a class and add these methods and call them directly from my code eg.
UrlParser.ParseUrl(url);
But wait a minute, that is introducing a dependency to another class. I am unsure whether these 'utility' classes are bad, as they are stateless and this minimises some of the problems with said static classes, and singletons. Could someone clarify this?
Should I be moving the methods to the calling class, that is if only the calling class will be using the method. THis may violate the 'Single Responsibilty Principle'.

From a theoretical design standpoint, I feel that Utility classes are something to be avoided when possible. They basically are no different than static classes (although slightly nicer, since they have no state).
From a practical standpoint, however, I do create these, and encourage their use when appropriate. Trying to avoid utility classes is often cumbersome, and leads to less maintainable code. However, I do try to encourage my developers to avoid these in public APIs when possible.
For example, in your case, I feel that UrlParser.ParseUrl(...) is probably better handled as a class. Look at System.Uri in the BCL - this handles a clean, easy to use interface for Uniform Resource Indentifiers, that works well, and maintains the actual state. I prefer this approach to a utility method that works on strings, and forcing the user to pass around a string, remember to validate it, etc.

Utility classes are ok..... as long as they don't violate design principles. Use them as happily as you'd use the core framework classes.
The classes should be well named and logical. Really they aren't so much "utility" but part of an emerging framwework that the native classes don't provide.
Using things like Extension methods can be useful as well to align functionality onto the "right" class. BUT, they can be a cause of some confusion as the extensions aren't packaged with the class they extend usually, which is not ideal, but, still, can be very useful and produce cleaner code.

You could always create an interface and use that with dependency injection with instances of classes that implement that interface instead of static classes.
The question becomes, is it really worth the effort? In some systems, the answer in yes, but in others, especially smaller ones, the answer is probably no.

This really depends on the context, and on how we use it.
Utility classes, itself, is not bad. However, It will become bad if we use it the bad way. Every design pattern (especially Singleton pattern) can easily be turned into anti-pattern, same goes for Utility classes.
In software design, we need a balancing between flexibility & simplicity. If we're going to create a StringUtils which is only responsible for string-manipulation:
Does it violate SRP (Single Responsibility Principle)? -> Nope, it's the developers that put too much responsibilities into utility classes that violate SRP.
"It can not be injected using DI frameworks" -> Are StringUtils implementation gonna varies? Are we gonna switch its implementations at runtime? Are we gonna mock it? Of course not.
=> Utility classes, themselve, are not bad. It's the developers' fault that make it bad.
It all really depends on the context. If you're just gonna create a utility class that only contains single responsibility, and is only used privately inside a module or a layer. Then you're still good with it.

I agree with some of the other responses here that it is the classic singleton which maintains a single instance of a stateful object which is to be avoided and not necessarily utility classes with no state that are evil. I also agree with Reed, that if at all possible, put these utility methods in a class where it makes sense to do so and where one would logically suspect such methods would reside. I would add, that often these static utility methods might be good candidates for extension methods.

I really, really try to avoid them, but who are we kidding... they creep into every system. Nevertheless, in the example given I would use a URL object which would then expose various attributes of the URL (protocol, domain, path and query-string parameters). Nearly every time I want to create a utility class of statics, I can get more value by creating an object that does this kind of work.
In a similar way I have created a lot of custom controls that have built in validation for things like percentages, currency, phone numbers and the like. Prior to doing this I had a Parser utility class that had all of these rules, but it makes it so much cleaner to just drop a control on the page that already knows the basic rules (and thus requires only business logic validation to be added).
I still keep the parser utility class and these controls hide that static class, but use it extensively (keeping all the parsing in one easy to find place). In that regard I consider it acceptable to have the utility class because it allows me to apply "Don't Repeat Yourself", while I get the benefit of instanced classes with the controls or other objects that use the utilities.

Utility classes used in this way are basically namespaces for what would otherwise be (pure) top-level functions.
From an architectural perspective there is no difference if you use pure top-level "global" functions or basic (*) pure static methods. Any pros or cons of one would equally apply to the other.
Static methods vs global functions
The main argument for using utility classes over global ("floating") functions is code organization, file and directory structure, and naming:
You might already have a convention for structuring class files in directories by namespace, but you might not have a good convention for top-level functions.
For version control (e.g. git) it might be preferable to have a separate file per function, but for other reasons it might be preferable to have them in the same file.
Your language might have an autoload mechanism for classes, but not for functions. (I think this would mostly apply to PHP)
You might prefer to write import Acme:::Url; Url::parse(url) over import function Acme:::parse_url; parse_url();. Or you might prefer the latter.
You should check if your language allows passing static methods and/or top-level functions as values. Perhaps some languages only allow one but not the other.
So it largely depends on the language you use, and conventions in your project, framework or software ecosystem.
(*) You could have private or protected methods in the utility class, or even use inheritance - something you cannot do with top-level functions. But most of the time this is not what you want.
Static methods/functions vs object methods
The main benefit of object methods is that you can inject the object, and later replace it with a different implementation with different behavior. Calling a static method directly works well if you don't ever need to replace it. Typically this is the case if:
the function is pure (no side effects, not influenced by internal or external state)
any alternative behavior would be considered as wrong, or highly strange. E.g. 1 + 1 should always be 2. There is no reason for an alternative implementation where 1 + 1 = 3.
You may also decide that the static call is "good enough for now".
And even if you start with static methods, you can make them injectable/pluggable later. Either by using function/callable values, or by having small wrapper classes with object methods that internally call the static method.

They're fine as long as you design them well ( That is, you don't have to change their signature from time to time).
These utility methods do not change that often, because they do one thing only. The problem comes when you want to tight a more complex object to another. If one of them needs to change or be replaced, it will be harder to to if you have them highly coupled.
Since these utility methods won't change that often I would say that is not much problem.
I think it would be worst if you copy/paste the same utility method over and over again.
This video How to design a good API and why it matters by Joshua Bloch, explains several concepts to bear in mind when designing an API ( that would be your utility library ). Although he's a recognized Java architect the content applies to all the programming languages.

Use them sparingly, you want to put as much logic as you can into your classes so they dont become just data containers.
But, at the same time you can't really avoid utilites, they are required sometimes.
In this case i think it's ok.
FYI there is the system.web.httputility class which contains alot of common http utilities which you may find useful.

Method can be made static, but should it?

ReSharper likes to point out multiple functions per ASP.NET page that could be made static. Does it help me if I do make them static? Should I make them static and move them to a utility class?

Performance, namespace pollution etc are all secondary in my view. Ask yourself what is logical. Is the method logically operating on an instance of the type, or is it related to the type itself? If it's the latter, make it a static method. Only move it into a utility class if it's related to a type which isn't under your control.
Sometimes there are methods which logically act on an instance but don't happen to use any of the instance's state yet. For instance, if you were building a file system and you'd got the concept of a directory, but you hadn't implemented it yet, you could write a property returning the kind of the file system object, and it would always be just "file" - but it's logically related to the instance, and so should be an instance method. This is also important if you want to make the method virtual - your particular implementation may need no state, but derived classes might. (For instance, asking a collection whether or not it's read-only - you may not have implemented a read-only form of that collection yet, but it's clearly a property of the collection itself, not the type.)

Static methods versus Instance methods
Static and instance members of the C# Language Specification explains the difference. Generally, static methods can provide a very small performance enhancement over instance methods, but only in somewhat extreme situations (see this answer for some more details on that).
Rule CA1822 in FxCop or Code Analysis states:
"After [marking members as static], the compiler will emit non-virtual call sites to these members which will prevent a check at
runtime for each call that ensures the current object pointer is
non-null. This can result in a measurable performance gain for
performance-sensitive code. In some cases, the failure to access the
current object instance represents a correctness issue."
Utility Class
You shouldn't move them to a utility class unless it makes sense in your design. If the static method relates to a particular type, like a ToRadians(double degrees) method relates to a class representing angles, it makes sense for that method to exist as a static member of that type (note, this is a convoluted example for the purposes of demonstration).

Marking a method as static within a class makes it obvious that it doesn't use any instance members, which can be helpful to know when skimming through the code.
You don't necessarily have to move it to another class unless it's meant to be shared by another class that's just as closely associated, concept-wise.

I'm sure this isn't happening in your case, but one "bad smell" I've seen in some code I've had to suffer through maintaining used a heck of a lot of static methods.
Unfortunately, they were static methods that assumed a particular application state. (why sure, we'll only have one user per application! Why not have the User class keep track of that in static variables?) They were glorified ways of accessing global variables. They also had static constructors (!), which are almost always a bad idea. (I know there are a couple of reasonable exceptions).
However, static methods are quite useful when they factor out domain-logic that doesn't actually depend on the state of an instance of the object. They can make your code a lot more readable.
Just be sure you're putting them in the right place. Are the static methods intrusively manipulating the internal state of other objects? Can a good case be made that their behavior belongs to one of those classes instead? If you're not separating concerns properly, you may be in for headaches later.

This is interesting read:
http://thecuttingledge.com/?p=57
ReSharper isn’t actually suggesting you make your method static.
You should ask yourself why that method is in that class as opposed to, say, one of the classes that shows up in its signature...
but here is what ReSharper documentaion says:
http://confluence.jetbrains.net/display/ReSharper/Member+can+be+made+static

Just to add to #Jason True's answer, it is important to realise that just putting 'static' on a method doesn't guarantee that the method will be 'pure'. It will be stateless with regard to the class in which it is declared, but it may well access other 'static' objects which have state (application configuration etc.), this may not always be a bad thing, but one of the reasons that I personally tend to prefer static methods when I can is that if they are pure, you can test and reason about them in isolation, without having to worry about the surrounding state.

For complex logic within a class, I have found private static methods useful in creating isolated logic, in which the instance inputs are clearly defined in the method signature and no instance side-effects can occur. All outputs must be via return value or out/ref parameters. Breaking down complex logic into side-effect-free code blocks can improve the code's readability and the development team's confidence in it.
On the other hand it can lead to a class polluted by a proliferation of utility methods. As usual, logical naming, documentation, and consistent application of team coding conventions can alleviate this.

You should do what is most readable and intuitive in a given scenario.
The performance argument is not a good one except in the most extreme situations as the only thing that is actually happening is that one extra parameter (this) is getting pushed onto the stack for instance methods.

ReSharper does not check the logic. It only checks whether the method uses instance members.
If the method is private and only called by (maybe just one) instance methods this is a sign to let it an instance method.

I hope you have already understood the difference between static and instance methods. Also, there can be a long answer and a short one. Long answers are already provided by others.
My short answer: Yes, you can convert them to static methods as ReSharper suggests. There is no harm in doing so. Rather, by making the method static, you are actually guarding the method so that you do not unnecessarily slip any instance members into that method. In that way, you can achieve an OOP principle "Minimize the accessibility of classes and members".
When ReSharper is suggesting that an instance method can be converted to a static one, it is actually telling you, "Why the .. this method is sitting in this class but it is not actually using any of its states?" So, it gives you food for thought. Then, it is you who can realize the need for moving that method to a static utility class or not. According to the SOLID principles, a class should have only one core responsibility. So, you can do a better cleanup of your classes in that way. Sometimes, you do need some helper methods even in your instance class. If that is the case, you may keep them within a #region helper.

If the functions are shared across many pages, you could also put them in a base page class, and then have all asp.net pages using that functionality inherit from it (and the functions could still be static as well).

Making a method static means you can call the method from outside the class without first creating an instance of that class. This is helpful when working with third-party vendor objects or add-ons. Imagine if you had to first create a Console object "con" before calling con.Writeline();

It helps to control namespace pollution.

Just my tuppence: Adding all of the shared static methods to a utility class allows you to add
using static className;
to your using statements, which makes the code faster to type and easier to read. For example, I have a large number of what would be called "global variables" in some code I inherited. Rather than make global variables in a class that was an instance class, I set them all as static properties of a global class. It does the job, if messily, and I can just reference the properties by name because I have the static namespace already referenced.
I have no idea if this is good practice or not. I have so much to learn about C# 4/5 and so much legacy code to refactor that I am just trying to let the Roselyn tips guide me.
Joey