Coding Guidelines for CSharp 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0

Rating:        Based on 7 ratings
Reviewed:  3 reviews
Downloads: 75930
Released: Nov 25, 2012
Updated: Oct 22, 2013 by dennisdoomen
Dev status: Stable Help Icon

Recommended Download

Documentation Coding Guidelines for C# 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0
documentation, 763K, uploaded Nov 25, 2012 - 51305 downloads

Other Available Downloads

Documentation Coding Guidelines for C# 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0 Cheat Sheet
documentation, 339K, uploaded Nov 25, 2012 - 11196 downloads
Application Static Code Analysis Rule Sets for Visual Studio 2010 and 2012
application, 2K, uploaded Nov 25, 2012 - 3222 downloads
Application Code Style Settings for ReSharper 6 and 7
application, 452K, uploaded Nov 26, 2012 - 1474 downloads
Documentation Coding Guidelines for C# 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0 (Japanese)
documentation, 1774K, uploaded Feb 14, 2013 - 4242 downloads
Application Coding Guidelines for C# 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0 Cheat Sheet (Japanese)
application, 872K, uploaded Feb 14, 2013 - 2785 downloads
Application Code Style Settings for ReSharper 8
application, 452K, uploaded Oct 22, 2013 - 1706 downloads

Release Notes

See Change History for a detailed list of modifications.

Reviews for this release

     
Refreshingly pragmatic. I would like to suggest that all coding standards state that everything in here is of course in the end a subjective guideline subject to what is practical and realistic. Suppose we apply a rule on a project that methods with 14 statements must be refactored. Now we pollute a class and it is too wide. Now we split classes and have naming and finding and reasoning problems and unit testing is made harder. Now we introduce DI containers and do not have ability to reason about the methods we read since any or no class may exist to implement IFactoryBeanSingletonVisitorInsuredCoverageChecker... A coding standard can prevent 1980s code smells and create 21st century tar pits. Thus pragmatism rules or ought to. The author of this excellent work knows this but some middle tier intelligence readers may loose sight. A good document but could use a bit more concrete samples. Maybe it should be a peer reviewed wiki in 2016 not a PDF. Needs C#6 and 7 updates.
by warrenpstma on Jul 13 at 3:21 PM
     
@ndmurph04 - maybe you could give some concrete examples? I found these guidelines among the best in all areas.
by tudor_turcu on Jul 3, 2014 at 2:20 PM
     
There is some value in the very basic stuff like naming conventions and general structural stuff, but when it gets to how you design your classes and objects, a non-trivial portion of these recommendations are the exact opposite of what developers should do to create well structured, high-performance web applications, so I would consider them desktop only guidelines. In some key areas, they also negate the performance benefits of the more recent language features.
by ndmurph04 on Jun 18, 2014 at 2:09 PM