We Keep Coding

Is there something better than preprocessor directives (#if, etc) in C#?

Most questions of this type are seeking to alter the program behavior (things that could be decided at run time) or want to deal directly with debug printing. This is a bit different.
I have code that depends on a peripheral (like a card reader). Sometimes I don't use it, which means the library isn't present. (And I'm being nice, because "library" turns out to mean installing a 2GB software suite). When I remove the library, I can't open the device. If I can't open the device, I can't create the class member that uses it. With the class inoperative, I can't call its methods from within the code. Therefore, I can't just choose not to execute it; I need it to go away since it will not compile without the library.
Preprocessor directives like #if and all that are ok, maybe; but these things appear in more than one file, which means independently maintaining a #define at the top of each. I come from a simpler place (meaning, C) where one header file can be used to control this. I note that C# is rather hostile about #define (either the label exists, or not; no constants or calculations allowed), and that makes me think there's another way.
How do you handle this?
---Follow-up(s)---
I did read the "duplicate" Q/A's, and have a fairly good picture of what I'm dealing with. I didn't find those questions in my original search, but sometimes that's just how it is.
#Amy suggests that #define at the top is "not how it's done" but rather "put it on the command line". So, (if I realize we are sticking with this mechanism) the discussion might go to examining ways to have that happen . One does not simply drop to a terminal and do that. It happens as "IDE features" or "IDE hacks".
#Alexei Levenkov asks what I really want. I really want to (a) not get compile errors, and (b) do it by selectively leaving out the code. And, find the C# equivalent to the way I proposed.
Some more constraints are addressed by the fact that I haven't been using VS or C# for all that long. So I know a lot less than you all do. Considering I got the code from the last person and have to deal with what I see, I don't want to set up the person after me to have to figure out what "interesting" thing I might have done to make it work. Thus, things like hand-editing a project file may work but will also cause consternation down the line.
# Eric Lippert suggests "hostile" is really "sensible". I may have had my tongue too far into my cheek on that one. VS seems to be telling me I'm doing it wrong, so I sensed there's a "right way" I simply don't know about. As for the 2GB supporting application, I will go to various computers and pull down the repository and try out something, and so this "overhead" wants to propagate with it. It's worse if I'm linked through my phone to do the download. And if I build the application with everything included, the end user is then required to install that software suite before the program will run. In theory, they could be required to buy the software. If I sent you a tic-tac-toe game, and told you it wouldn't run until you installed Oracle, you'd probably pass on the whole thing.
I considered the "stub out the interface" idea, but there seemed to be more hooks into the class than I wanted to deal with. Plus, I don't know what these things do, so I have to know something about them in order to "fake" them.
In the end I decided that we're still largely using the #if scheme to get this done, and the replacement feature I imagined might exist, doesn't. And I'm using the provision in the project file(s) as cited by #Jim G. as it gets the job done and is only a little imperfect. It's good enough.

As #BJ Safdie said here:
Set them in your Compilation Properties or Build options.
You get to the build options by right-clicking the project and selecting
properties from the menu.

Exclude other methods, variables and classes that are not needed for your method to work

You load a foreign code example with libraries attached to it in Visual Studio. Now there is a method that you want to reuse in your code. Is there a function in VS that lets you strip the code from all unnecessary code to only have code left that is necessary for your current method to run?
It is not about the library. Loading a .sln or .csproj and having classes over classes when you just want one method out of it is a waste of performance, ram and space. It is about code you can easily omit or references(what I call libraries) you can easily omit. A part-question of this is: Which "using" statement do you need that is only necessary for your current method and the methods that pass paramaters to it? In short, showing relevant code only. Code that is tied to each other.
Let's use an example: You go to github and download source code in c#. Let's call the solution S. You open S in Visual Studio. You don't disassemble, you just load the source code of S, that is there in plain text. Then you find a method M - in plain text - that you want to use. M contains some objects whose classes were defined somewhere in the project. The goal is to recreate the surrounding only for this method to copy & paste it into my own solution without having red underlined words in almost every line within the method

after reading the question and the comments, I think I have a vague idea what you are referring to.
In case we ignore the context of the method you are referring, you can extract any code piece from a "library" by using a .NET decompiler and assembly browser.
There are many of them for free, such as:
dotPeek,
ILSpy
...
This will allow you to see the method's code. From there on, you can proceed as you like. In case your copy the method to your code base, you might still have to change it a bit in order to adapt it to work with your objects and context. If you don't, this will give you insight on how the method works and might help you to understand the logic, so you can write your own.
Disclaimer: With this post, I am pointing out that it is possible to extract code from an assembly. I am not discussing the ethics or legal perspective behind such actions.
Hope this helps,
Happy Coding!

If it`s just one method, look at the source code and copy it to your libarary. Make sure you make a comment where you obtained the code and who has the copyright! Don't forget to include the licence, which you should have done with a libary reference anyway.
That said it is currently not (official) possible to automaticly remove unused public declared code from a library (assembly). This process is called Treeshaking by the way. Exception: .NET Native.
But .NET Native is only available for Windows Store Apps. You can read more about it here.
That said, we have the JIT (Just in Time)-Compiler which is realy smart. I wouldn't worry about a few KB library code. Spend your time optimizing your SQL Queries and other bottlenecks. The classes are only loaded, when you actualy use them.
Using some unstable solutions or maintaining a fork of a library, where you use more then one method (with no documentation and no expertise, since it is your own fork) isn't worth the headache, you will have!
If you realy want to go the route of removing everything you do not want, you can open the solution, declare everything as internal (search and replace is your friend) and restore the parts to public, which are giving you are Buildtime error / Runtime error (Reflection). Then remove everything which is internal. There are several DesignTime tools like Resharper, which can remove Dead Code.
But as I said, it's not worth it!
For .NET Core users, in 6-8 weeks, we have the .NET IL Linker as spender has commented, it looks promising. What does this mean? The .NET framework evolves from time to time. Let it envolve and look at your productivity in the meantime.

Do method names get compiled into the EXE?

Do class, method and variable names get included in the MSIL after compiling a Windows App project into an EXE?
For obfuscation - less names, harder to reverse engineer.
And for performance - shorter names, faster access.
e.g. So if methods ARE called via name:
Keep names short, better performance for named-lookup.
Keep names cryptic, harder to decompile.

Yes, they're in the IL - fire up Reflector and you'll see them. If they didn't end up in the IL, you couldn't build against them as libraries. (And yes, you can reference .exe files as if they were class libraries.)
However, this is all resolved once in JIT.
Keep names readable so that you'll be able to maintain the code in the future. The performance issue is unlikely to make any measurable difference, and if you want to obfuscate your code, don't do it at the source code level (where you're the one to read the code) - do it with a purpose-built obfuscator.
EDIT: As for what's included - why not just launch Reflector or ildasm and find out? From memory, you lose local variable names (which are in the pdb file if you build it) but that's about it. Private method names and private variable names are still there.

Yes, they do. I do not think that there will be notable performance gain by using shorter names. There is no way that gain overcomes the loss of readability.

Local variables are not included in MSIL. Fields, methods, classes etc are.
Variables are index based.

Member names do get included in the IL whether they are private or public. In fact all of your code gets included too, and if you'd use Reflector, you can practically read all the source code of the application. What's left is debugging the app, and I think there might be tools for that.
You must ABSOLUTELY (and I can't emphasize it more) obfuscate your code if you're making packaged applications that have a number of clients and competition. Luckily there are a number of obfuscators available.
This is a major gripe that I have with .Net. Since MS is doing so much hard work on this, why not develop (or acquire) a professional obfuscator and make that a part of VS. Dotfuscator just doesn't cut it, not the version they've for community.

Keep names short, better
performance for named-lookup.
How could this make any difference? I'm not sure how identifiers are looked up by the VM, but I'm pretty sure it's not doing a straight string comparison lookup. This would be the worst possible way to do it.
Keep names cryptic, harder to decompile.
To be honest, I don't think code obfuscation helps that much. Most competent developers out there have already developed a "sixth sense" to figure out things quickly even if identifiers like method names are totally unhelpful since very often the source code they need to maintain or improve already has these problems (I am talking about method names like "DoAllStuff()").
Anyway, security through obscurity is usually a bad idea.

If you are concerned about obfuscation check out .NET Reactor. I tested 8 different obfuscators and Reactor was not only the cheapest commercial one, it was the second best of the bunch (the best was the most expensive one, Dotfuscator Gold).
[EDIT]
Actually now that I think of it, if all you care about is obfuscating method names then the one that comes with VS.NET, Dotfuscator Community Edition, should work fine.

I think they're added, but the length of the name isn't going to affect anything, because of the way the function names are looked up. As for obfuscation, I think there are tools (Dotfuscator or something like that) that basically do exactly what you're saying.

Looking for a configurable pretty printer for C# code

I work on a team with about 10 developers. Some of the developers have very exacting formatting needs. I would like to find a pretty printer that I could configure to these specifications and then add to the build processes. In this way no matter how badly other people mess up the format when it is pulled down from source control it will look acceptable.

The easiest solution is for the team lead to mandate a format and everyone use it. The VS defaults are pretty good.
Jeff Atwood did that to us here on Stack Overflow and while I rebelled at first, I got over it :) Makes everything much easier!

Coding standards are definitely something we have. The coding formatting I am talking about is imposed by a grizzled architect that is, lets say, set in his ways and extremely particular. Lets just pretend that we can not address the human factor. I was looking for a way to circumvent the whole human processes.
The visual studio defaults sadly do not address line breaks very well. I am just making this line chopping style up but....
ServiceLocator.Logger.WriteDefault(string.format("{0}{1}"
,foo
,bar)
,Logging.SuperDuper);
another example of formatting visual studio is not too hot at....
if( foo
&& ( bar
|| baz
|| apples
|| oranges)
&& IsFoo()
&& IsBar() ){
}
Visual studio does not play well at all will stuff like this. We are currently using ReSharper to allow for more granularity with formating but it sadly falls sort in many areas.
Don't get me wrong though coding standards are great. The goal of the pretty printer as part of the build process is to get 'perfect' looking code no matter how well people are paying attention or counting their spaces.
The edge cases around code formatting are very solvable since it is a well defined grammar.
As far as the VS defaults go I can only say: BSD style or die!
So all that brings me full circle back to: Is there a configurable pretty printer for C#? As much as lexical analysis and parsing fascinate I have about had my fill making a YAML C# tool chain.

Your issue was the primary intent for creating NArrange (beta). It allows configurable reformatting of C# code and you can use one common configuration file to be shared by the entire team. Since its focus is primarily on reordering members in classes and controlling regions, it is still lacking many necessary formatting options (especially formatting within member code lines).
The normal usage scenario is for each developer to run the tool prior to check-in. I'm not aware of any one running it is part of their build process, but there is no reason why you couldn't, since it is a command-line tool. One idea that I've contemplated is running NArrange on files as part of a pre-commit step. If the original file contents being checked in don't match the NArrange formatted output on the source repository server, then the developer didn't reformat to the rules and a check-in error can be raised.
For more information, see my CodeProject article on Using NArrange to Organize C# Code.
Update 2023-02-25: NArrange appears to have moved to Github. The NArrange site (referenced above) is no longer available although there are copies in web.archive.org

I second Jarrod's answer. If you have 2 developers with conflicting coding preferences, then get the rest of the team to vote, and then get the boss to back the majority decision.
Additionally, the problem with trying to automatically apply a pretty printer like that, is that there will always be exceptional cases where your blanket coding standard is not the best or most readable solution, and you will lose out by squashing them with an automated tool.
Coding Standards are just that, standards. They don't call them Coding Laws or Coding Rules, and there's a good reason for that.

How do you programmatically identify the number of references to a method with C#

I've recently inherited C# console application that is in need of some pruning and clean up. Long story short, the app consists of a single class containing over 110,000 lines of code. Yup, over 110,000 lines in a single class. And, of course, the app is core to our business, running 'round the clock updating data used on a dynamic website. Although I'm told my predecessor was "a really good programmer", it obvious he was not at all into OOP (or version control).
Anyway... while familiarizing myself with the code I've found plenty of methods that are declared, but never referenced. It looks as if copy/paste was used to version the code, for example say I have a method called getSomethingImportant(), chances are there is another method called getSomethingImortant_July2007() (the pattern is functionName_[datestamp] in most cases). It looks like when the programmer was asked to make a change to getSomethingImportant() he would copy/paste then rename to getSomethingImortant_Date, make changes to getSomethingImortant_Date, then change any method calls in the code to the new method name, leaving the old method in the code but never referenced.
I'd like to write a simple console app that crawls through the one huge class and returns a list of all methods with the number of times each method was referenced. By my estimates there are well over 1000 methods, so doing this by hand would take a while.
Are there classes within the .NET framework that I can use to examine this code? Or any other usefull tools that may help identify methods that are declared but never referenced?
(Side question: Has anyone else ever seen a C# app like this, one reeeealy big class? It's more or less one huge procedural process, I know this is the first I've seen, at least of this size.)

You could try to use NDepend if you just need to extract some stats about your class. Note that this tool relies on Mono.Cecil internally to inspect assemblies.

To complete the Romain Verdier answer, lets dig a bit into what NDepend can bring to you here. (Disclaimer: I am a developer of the NDepend team)
NDepend lets query your .NET code with some LINQ queries. Knowing which methods call and is called by which others, is as simple as writing the following LINQ query:
from m in Application.Methods
select new { m, m.MethodsCalled, m.MethodsCallingMe }
The result of this query is presented in a way that makes easy to browse callers and callees (and its 100% integrated into Visual Studio).
There are many other NDepend capabilities that can help you. For example you can right click a method in Visual Studio > NDepend > Select methods... > that are using me (directly or indirectly) ...
The following code query is generated...
from m in Methods
let depth0 = m.DepthOfIsUsing("NUnit.Framework.Constraints.ConstraintExpression.Property(String)")
where depth0 >= 0 orderby depth0
select new { m, depth0 }
... which matches direct and indirect callers, with the depth of calls (1 means direct caller, 2 means caller of direct callers and so on).
And then by clicking the button Export to Graph, you get a call graph of your pivot method (of course it could be the other way around, i.e method called directly or indirectly by a particular pivot method).

Download the free trial of Resharper. Use the Resharper->Search->Find Usages in File (Ctrl-Shift-F7) to have all usages highlighted. Also, a count will appear in the status bar. If you want to search across multiple files, you can do that too using Ctrl-Alt-F7.
If you don't like that, do text search for the function name in Visual Studio (Ctrl-Shift-F), this should tell you how many occurrences were found in the solution, and where they are.

I don't think you want to write this yourself - just buy NDepend and use its Code Query Language

There is no easy tool to do that in .NET framework itself. However I don't think you really need a list of unused methods at once. As I see it, you'll just go through the code and for each method you'll check if it's unused and then delete it if so. I'd use Visual Studio "Find References" command to do that. Alternatively you can use Resharper with its "Analize" window. Or you can just use Visual Studio code analysis tool to find all unused private methods.

FXCop has a rule that will identify unused private methods. So you could mark all the methods private and have it generate a list.
FXCop also has a language if you wanted to get fancier
http://www.binarycoder.net/fxcop/

If you don't want to shell out for NDepend, since it sounds like there is just a single class in a single assembly - comment out the methods and compile. If it compiles, delete them - you aren't going to have any inheritance issues, virtual methods or anything like that. I know it sounds primitive, but sometimes refactoring is just grunt work like this. This is kind of assuming you have unit tests you run after each build until you've got the code cleaned up (Red/Green/Refactor).

The Analyzer window in Reflector can show you where a method is called (Used By).
Sounds like it would take a very long time to get the information that way though.
You might look at the API that Reflector provides for writing add-ins and see if you can get the grunt work of the analysis that way. I would expect that the source code for the code metrics add-in could tell you a bit about how to get information about methods from the reflector API.
Edit: Also the code model viewer add-in for Reflector could help too. It's a good way to explore the Reflector API.

I don't know of anything that's built to handle this specific case, but you could use Mono.Cecil. Reflect the assemblies and then count references in the IL. Shouldn't be too tough.

Try having the compiler emit assembler files, as in x86 instructions, not .NET assemblies.
Why? Because it's much easier to parse assembler code than it is C# code or .NET assemblies.
For instance, a function/method declaration looks something like this:
.string "w+"
.text
.type create_secure_tmpfile, #function
create_secure_tmpfile:
pushl %ebp
movl %esp, %ebp
subl $24, %esp
movl $-1, -8(%ebp)
subl $4, %esp
and function/method references will look something like this:
subl $12, %esp
pushl 24(%ebp)
call create_secure_tmpfile
addl $16, %esp
movl 20(%ebp), %edx
movl %eax, (%edx)
When you see "create_secure_tmpfile:" you know you have a function/method declaration, and when you see "call create_secure_tmpfile" you know you have a function/method reference. This may be good enough for your purposes, but if not it's just a few more steps before you can generate a very cute call-tree for your entire application.