const == static?

Sometimes it can be the simple things that surprise. Ok, maybe you are one of those geniuses who knew it all the time. If that is the case don't bother reading this post. For all mere mortals go ahead. When writing code in C# on the surface you would assume that const and static mean two different things. But in reality there is a connection. As soon as you declare a field to be const it becomes static. The explanation is actually quite simple. If a field is declared const then its value is the same in all instances of that class. If that is the case a conceptual optimization can take place by simply declaring such a field static. If the value is the same it can be share across all instances. Sounds a bit confusing but it actually makes sense. This is not necessarily obvious at face value. Having worked with C++, Java, and C# over years it just became apparent when working with the type system and reflection in .NET. What I learn from that? There is always a little gem waiting to be discovered! Now here is some food for an additional thought: Can a static field be automatically const? If so, why? If not, why not?

csUnit in 2008

csUnit continues to enjoy good download and visitor numbers on its web site. In particular the interest in (introductory) tutorials remains very strong. Therefore we are assessing what options we have with regards to improving the tutorials that already exist, and whether there are opportunities for additional tutorials. As for csUnit we are looking into options with regards to increasing the functional footprint again this year without increasing the burden on user who don't need some of the new features (yet). The data-driven testing features are likely to move out of the experimental stage. Also, there are a few smaller improvements for supporting generics. And then we certainly want to make sure that csUnit also works with Vista, .NET 3.5 and Visual Studio 2008.