Is And As In C#

It has a simple hierarchy and quite easy to understand.Default access SpecifierPublic in C++ for Struct. Private for classesPrivate in C# .net.PlatformC++ is a language that runs on all sorts of platforms. (Range-based for loop in C++ is added since C++ 11)C# supports for each loop.Use of pointersYou can use pointers anywhere in the program.

Therefore, it is flexible language, but you may cause serious damage running OS.C# is highly protected. While I do feel that the article may be a bit biased its does present a lot of gotchas that new C# developers should keep and eye out for. Some of the mistakes listed are not C# exclusive and avoidable by simply educating ones self on how the language behaves (ex. value vs reference, types). Some solutions need to be prefaced with "depending on the case".

I also feel that the #9 may have missed the mark a little bit, they are there for catching errors IF one occurs and returning you to a "safe" place where you are able to safely recover. However, it is correct in saying that exceptions should not be used as a normal control statement. Even though I know better, I too, am guilty of using them incorrectly from time to time. The mistake would also benefit from having a bit more on how to use exceptions correctly.

LINQ like any language feature can be abused and used in such ways that it does make things harder to understand but it is a powerful tool that should not be overlooked. I like to use it when accessing data sources, and then prefer other control loops for any processing on the data. This separates processing code from data access visually and helps keep things easy to spot and understand. LINQ allows for the ability to create complex "SQL like" statements that MAY be more difficult to implement in the SQL flavor of choice.

LINQ vs Extension methods, it is key to keep your understanding of these clear. LINQ is not extension methods, LINQ is not Extension methods, LINQ is not extension methods. Extension methods allow for extending types that you don't necessarily have access to, such as third party dll's.

Linq is just really a syntactic sugar that allows for a different approach which may make things conceptually simpler to understand. For example, a few years ago Microsoft decided to add features to C# to make database access feel well integrated with the language. The resulting technology, Language Integrated Query , certainly supports that goal, but Microsoft achieved this without adding any direct support for data access to the language. Instead, Microsoft introduced a series of quite diverse-seeming capabilities. The last of these has an obvious connection to data access, but the rest are harder to relate to the task at hand. Nonetheless, these can be used collectively in a way that makes certain data access tasks significantly simpler.

But the features are all useful in their own right, so as well as supporting data access, they enable a much wider range of scenarios. Any operation performed on types sbyte, byte, short, or ushort return int values. To assign the result into the bitNot variable we had to use a cast, , operator, where Type is the type you wish to convert to (in this case – sbyte). The cast operator is shown as the Unary operator, x, in table 2-4.

Cast operators must be performed explicitly when you go from a larger type to a smaller type because of the potential for lost data. Generally speaking, assigning a smaller type to a larger type is no problem since the larger type has room to hold the entire value. Also, be aware of the dangers of casting between signed and unsigned types. You want to be sure to preserve the integrity of your data.

Many basic programming texts contain good descriptions of bit representations of variables and the dangers of explicit casting. While this simple example has just one, it's common to see a list of directives here. These state the namespaces of the types a source file intends to use. You will normally edit this list to match your file's requirements.

In this example, Visual Studio added using System; when I created the project. If you add a class representing a UI element, for example, Visual Studio would include various UI-related namespaces in the list. "I saw the LINQ statement first and I totally got what it was doing immediately" — it means you saw simple LINQ statements, in the cases where the decision to use LINQ was wise. "descriptors like very hard are highly subjective". You cannot step in/step over, which becomes problem e.g. if the LINQ contains non-MS extension methods — you can't just step in to find out what it does. You cannot use intermediate IDE window with statements that have lambdas.

Unlike imperative code, you can't review intermediate results as they're not kept in variables but lost in the call stack. Intermediate data is very often implicitly typed and unnamed. I saw a funny article entitled "What if Visual Studio had Achievements? The relevant item is #2 that says "Job Security – Written a LINQ query with over 30 lines of code".

In my previous comment, I was talking about _that_ kind of LINQ. While there certainly are advantages to using extension methods, they can cause problems and a cry for C# programming help for those developers who aren't aware of them or don't properly understand them. This is especially true when looking at code samples online, or at any other pre-written code.

A lot of time can be spent searching for a new version, or phantom "missing library", that doesn't exist. If you are writing libraries that you intend to share, you should target .NET Standard instead. In any case, the development tools will ensure that you only use APIs available in whichever version of .NET Standard you declare support for. Of course, languages do not exist in a vacuum—high-quality libraries with a broad range of features are essential. Some elegant and academically beautiful languages are glorious right up until you want to do something prosaic, such as talking to a database or determining where to store user settings. No matter how powerful a set of programming idioms a language offers, it also needs to provide full and convenient access to the underlying platform's services.

C# is on very strong ground here, thanks to its runtime, the class library, and extensive third-party library support. Another common reason to pass a variable by reference is to let the called method modify its value. Because this is allowed, C# always enforces specifying that a value is passed by reference even in the method call, something many other programming languages don't. This let developers reading the code easily spot places that can imply a type has had its value changed in a method, which is useful when analyzing the program flow. You've now seen the basic structure of C# programs. I created a solution containing two projects, one for tests and one for the program itself.

This was a simple example, so each project had only one source file of interest. Each began with using directives indicating which types the file uses. A namespace declaration stated the namespace that the file populates, and this contained a class containing one or more methods or other members, such as fields. The Mono project was launched in 2001, and did not originate from Microsoft.

That crucial move helped Mono find its niche, because it is now mainly used to create cross-platform mobile device applications in C#. It was open source from the start, and has been supported by a variety of companies over its existence. At the time of writing this, Mono is under the stewardship of a company called Xamarin, and has been since 2011.

Microsoft acquired Xamarin in 2016, and for now retains it as a distinct brand, positioning its Mono runtime as the way to run C# code on mobile devices. One illustration of this philosophy of generality was a language feature that was prototyped for C#, but which its designers ultimately chose not to go ahead with. The feature would have enabled you to write XML directly in your source code, embedding expressions to calculate values for certain bits of content at runtime. The prototype compiled this into code that generated the completed XML at runtime. Embedded XML expressions are a relatively narrow facility, only useful when you're creating XML documents. As for querying XML documents, C# supports this functionality through its general-purpose LINQ features, without needing any XML-specific language features.

XML's star has waned since this language concept was mooted, having been usurped in many cases by JSON . Had embedded XML made it into C#, it would by now feel like a slightly anachronistic curiosity. The language is actually a hybrid taken from C and C++. Comparable to Java, C# is an object-based language that is designed to help coders improve productivity when developing web applications.

These features make arriving at solutions to application and software issues faster and easier. C# continues its enforcement of type safety into runtime. This allows you to pinpoint many types of errors in C# much more quickly than in languages such as C++, where faulty type conversions can result in arbitrary values being assigned to an object's fields. However, once again, programmers can squander this great feature, leading to C# problems. They fall into this trap because C# provides two different ways of doing things, one which can throw an exception, and one which won't.

Some will shy away from the exception route, figuring that not having to write a try/catch block saves them some coding. The runtime part is called the Common Language Runtime because it supports not just C#, but any .NET language. Microsoft also offers Visual Basic, F#, and .NET extensions for C++, for example. The CLR environment employs a garbage collector, so you don't need to explicitly free the memory created for any object.

There's no equivalent of the C++ delete operator or the free() function in C . But that doesn't mean that you can just forget about all objects after you're done using them. Many types of objects encapsulate some other type of system resource (e.g., a disk file, database connection, network socket, etc.). Leaving these resources open can quickly deplete the total number of system resources, degrading performance and ultimately leading to program faults.

When compared with C++ templates, C# generics can provide enhanced safety, but also have somewhat limited capabilities. For example, it is not possible to call arithmetic operators on a C# generic type. Unlike C++ templates, .NET parameterized types are instantiated at runtime rather than by the compiler; hence they can be cross-language whereas C++ templates cannot. They support some features not supported directly by C++ templates such as type constraints on generic parameters by use of interfaces. On the other hand, C# does not support non-type generic parameters. Although classes and structures are similar in both the way they are declared and how they are used, there are some significant differences.

Classes are reference types and structs are value types. A structure is allocated on the stack when it is declared and the variable is bound to its address. Classes are different because the memory is allocated as objects on the heap. Variables are rather managed pointers on the stack which point to the objects. The is and as operators are two good ways of doing the cast of the objects, and they also help us to avoid exception in case of some failure during the cast.

"AS" keyword helps to do conversion from one type to other type. For instance in the below code we are converting object to a string data type. If the "AS" keyword is not able to type cast it returns NULL.

Executables typically have an .exe file extension in Windows, while libraries use .dll . Starting with .NET Core 3.0, it can generate a bootstrapping executable (with an .exe extension on Windows), but this just starts the runtime and then loads the .dll containing the main compiled output. In either case, the only difference between the main compiled output of an application and a library is that the former specifies an application entry point. Both file types can export features to be consumed by other components. These are both examples of assemblies, the subject of Chapter 12.

The static keyword is used to specify a static member, which means static members are common to all the objects and they do not tie to a specific object. This keyword can be used with classes, fields, methods, properties, operators, events, and constructors, but it cannot be used with indexers, destructors, or types other than classes. We also have explicit and implicit operators, meaning some operators require an explicit cast and some operators don't. LINQPad uses this technique to speed up the creation of new queries. A variation is to run a number of different algorithms in parallel that all solve the same task.

More bugs than a New York kitchen and slower than continental drift. If I wanted an environment hated and blocked by MSFT AAPL and GOOG equally I would definitely chose mono. You clearly don't like pointers (even if all C# classes are implemented as pointers to objects under the hood). No problem, many IT trainees are not good enough to handle pointers. Compared to Java of course, C# does not take much away from C++.

To make a soup analogy, the result is a mix of tomato soup, chocolate marshmallows, and clam chowder perfumed with skunk essence served in tin cans with proprietary locks. C++ is still the only way to write code once and easily run it across all the incompatible platforms out there. Like in C and C++ there are functions that group reusable code. The main difference is that functions, just like in Java, have to reside inside of a class. A method has a return value, a name and usually some parameters initialized when it is called with some arguments. It can either belong to an instance of a class or be a static member.

When you define nested namespaces, the convention is to create a matching folder hierarchy. If you create a project called MyApp, as you've seen, by default Visual Studio will put new classes in the MyApp namespace when you add them to the project. But if you create a new folder in the project called, say, Storage, Visual Studio will put any new classes you create in that folder into the MyApp.Storage namespace.

Again, you're not required to keep this—Visual Studio just adds a namespace declaration when creating the file, and you're free to change it. The compiler does not need the namespace to match your folder hierarchy. But since the convention is supported by Visual Studio, life will be easier if you follow it. Earlier, you saw that a project's References describe which libraries it uses.

What Was The Price Of Apple Stock After The Split

Apple's fourth and final stock split to date happened on 9 June 2014. This was the most significant of Apple's stock splits, with a seven-to-one ratio taking shares from close to $700 down to around $100. Apple wanted to make shares accessible to more investors, but it's also speculated that they set their sights on inclusion in the Dow Jones Industrial Average index. This index acts as a benchmark, with 30 stocks included from key economic sectors. As it's a price weighted average, Apple's stock price needed to be reduced before it was feasible for the company to be added. It was announced that Apple would join the Dow Jones in March 2015 and it has been a part of the index since March 2019.

The second Apple stock split took place on 21 June 2000, and was also a two-for-one split. Ahead of the split in May 2000, the stock price was $84. Shortly afterwards though, in September 2000, share prices were halved as many technology companies experienced a rapid decline. This was around the time the dot-com bubble burst, where many companies went out of business and others decreased in value. Apple blamed lower-than-forecast sales, as well as a weaknesses in the education market.

While Apple was affected temporarily, the company's shares made a full recovery and went on to achieve new highs. Apple's stock has split several times since it first went public in December 1980. The first split came on June 16, 1987, on a two-for-one basis at a pre-split price of $79. The next split came on June 21, 2000, when share prices reached $111. On Feb. 28, 2005, Apple split its stock again when it hit $90.

The company split its stock again on a seven-to-one basis on June 9, 2014, when share prices reached $656. The final stock split came on Aug. 28, 2020, when it split on a four-to-one basis at a pre-split price of $499.23. To be clear, stock splits do not change a company's underlying fundamentals. And though the lower-priced shares can attract smaller investors, larger investors already trading the shares can maintain more influence over the price action.

The overall market environment is key, as well, and it has influenced trading after the limited number of previous Apple stock splits. Apple is having a great year, and its4-for-1 stock spliton Monday is expected to make the market's most-valuable company even more attractive to a wider universe of retail investors. But the limited history of Apple stock splits says there is no reason to rush in to buy the lower-priced shares.

Apple's first stock split occurred on 16 June 1987, seven years after it became a public company, and it was a two-for-one stock split. It kept share prices low enough to make them accessible to investors. There was a 2% rise in stock prices over the following year. This is where split adjusted figures come in – they account for stock splits when working out return on investment.

With Apple, stock adjusted figures would acknowledge the fact that one stock bought during its initial public offering would now have become 56 shares. The company has previously split its stock four times when its shares have seen significant price increases, as highlighted in the table below. In the first three instances, stocks were split in two when the price was near triple figures. Then, in 2014, share prices rose sharply and a higher split ratio was used.

When looking at the value of a company's shares, it can be difficult to interpret how successful the company has been based on its stock prices following a split. Apple's current share price of around $408 doesn't look as impressive as it would have done ahead of its four stock splits. It seems unlikely that Apple will complete another stock divide in the near future. Share prices are still climbing (they are currently trading at around $186), however shares were worth close to $700 before the last split in 2014.

Apple may consider another stock split if share prices continue to rise, but for now, this move probably wouldn't be in the best interests of the company. Stock divides might not directly increase share prices, but they can often result in higher share prices further down the line. By making shares accessible to new investors, demand can increase, causing the share price to appreciate and the total market capitalisation to rise. Apple's financial performance, including its share price, relies heavily on the sales of its products.

A high flier through much of its recent history, Apple stock hit new all-time highs toward the end of 2021, with a market capitalization approaching a record $3 trillion. It began trading publicly on Dec. 12, 1980, and this is the fifth split. The most recent one adjusted its share price from about $500 to $125. With the historical adjustments, previous events and prices will be changed. For instance, Apple priced shares in its 1980 initial public offering at $22 a shares.

After its first four stock splits, though, that price fell to 39 cents a shares in the historical register, and it will fall again — to about a dime — after this split. An investor buys a share in Apple in January 2005, so they have one share worth $77.00. After the two-for-one stock split a month later, they own two shares in Apple, but each of these shares is worth half the amount, at $38.50. If the shareholder keeps these two stocks until May 2014, they will be worth $1,266 ($633 each) as the stock price appreciates. With the fourth stock split, each of these stocks will then be split seven times, so that the shareholder owns 14 shares in Apple. The high valuations aren't just because of the stock split or the tech sector's big run in 2020.

Apple also continues to show strength in wearables, fueled by AirPods, Beats, and watches. That's because it enacted the four-to-one stock split to become "more accessible to a broader base of investors," the company announced after a knockout third-quarter earnings report. After Friday's closing bell, Apple shareholders are due the split shares for each existing share of the company that they own. Apple shares officially start trading at the new split-adjusted price at the opening bell of Monday's Nasdaq session. Apple announced its plan for the split on July 30 with its most recent earnings report. That underperforms the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which tends to be a coin flip in these post-Apple stock split weeks.

The Dow has eked out a positive gain, on average, trading in the green half the time. While a stock split might be carried out to encourage investment, the split in itself doesn't affect the market capitalisation of a company. Existing shareholders will own more stocks, but each of those stocks is worth less, so there is no change to the total market value of the company.

Large companies beat collective market expectations of their earnings to positively influence their market capitalization. It's no accident that they often manipulate their earnings reports to match or beat estimates to artificially enhance their stock prices. As a result, earnings management is highly scrutinized by the Securities and Exchange Commission . In theory, stock splits like this one don't mean much.

If today you own 100 shares worth $500 each, on Monday you will have 400 shares worth $125 each. But it turns out that splits matter more than you'd logically think. Apple's upcoming stock split will see investors issued with four new shares for every one they currently own.

What Was The Price Of Apple Stock Before The Split The limited history of Apple stock splits shows that a short-term rally in shares has not been the result. Here's how shares have performed one year after its previous stock splits. Robinhood and other brokerages increasingly let customers buy fractions of individual shares, making the benefit of stock splits less obvious than in the past. Just three S&P 500 members announced splits in 2020, down from 12 in 2011, according to S&P Dow Jones Indices. Since I require a discount in the share valuations of my investments, my ratings are generally very conservative.

My valuation requirements, combined with the high quality companies that I often highlight, mean many stocks I rate as a hold perform well over the long term. Readers should consider this when weighing my buy/hold/sell recommendations. I seek a degree of safety in my investments by focusing on companies with competitive advantages and reasonable to strong balance sheets. That investor would own 22,400 shares worth $3,032,288. The annual dividends provide an income stream of $18,368 per year.

Although the chart above provides a share price of $293.65, that was the cost of the stock on the first trading day of the year. However, when the company announced the split , the stock was trading around $400 per share. A month later the shares split, and AAPL was trading at $645.57 per share. I provide an analysis of share price action following prior stock splits.

A transfer agent for a publicly held company keeps records of stock held by registered shareholders, including shares held in certificate form. When stock changes hands, the transfer agent updates the record of ownership of the stock. A stock split divides the original share price into smaller prices per share. A current Apple stockholder with one share will get three extra shares once the split occurs. (And one man inheriting 7,000 shares of Apple now has 28,000 shares.) Likewise, a current Tesla stockholder with one share will get four extra shares.

The release of an innovative, revenue-driving product or service is one of the few options a company has to influence its stock valuation. When Wall Street valuations are right or wrong, the reward or loss can be astronomical for investors. This is because accurately estimating the impact of an internationally distributed product on a company's earnings and the company's stock is a herculean challenge.

The stock market reflects all known information as stated by the efficient market hypothesis, processing and assimilating new data rapidly through the mechanism of buying and selling. The stock market is also forward-looking, which explains why a company's stock may fall, even when reported earnings improve from the previous quarter. Apple's stock history is a stellar example of how this works. Surged again on Monday as stock splits took effect and attracted more buying from investors. A review of historical data provides no clear cut target for a share price that would trigger a stock split. It does appear as if the odds of a new stock split increase as the share price reaches the $200 to $250 range.

Apple's third stock split took place on 28 February 2005, with the company once again allocating a two-for-one ratio. This took the number of common shares authorised from 900 million to 1.8 billion, after shares almost quadrupled in value. While Apple has demonstrated generally strong returns following its stock splits over the years, not many companies have followed its path.

According to Ally Invest, fewer S&P 500 companies are splitting their stocks now than in the 1990s when it was all the rage. So how have shares of Apple performed after its previous stock splits? Here's how shares of Apple performed one year after its previous stock splits, according to Ally Invest. Apple completed its fifth stock split on Monday, as investors received four shares for every one share held. Apple split its stock 4-for-1, while Tesla split its stock 5-for-1, with both companies saying they aimed to make their shares more affordable to individual investors. The data has been revised since the last quarterly report.

For example, a month ago, revenue was projected to increase at an annual rate of 8.56% versus the current rate of 9.98%. Apple's stock has split five times since the company went public. The stock split on a 4-for-1 basis on August 28, 2020, a 7-for-1 basis on June 9, 2014, and split on a 2-for-1 basis on February 28, 2005, June 21, 2000, and June 16, 1987. A $1,000 investment in Apple on the day of the split was only worth $428 a year later. Investors who bought because of the split, without understanding Apple's fundamental business, may have sold at the worst possible time. Those who held on through the tech wreck and beyond have been rewarded.

That $1,000 investment would be worth nearly $113,000 today. Just seven Dow Jones Industrial Average components, including Apple, had share prices higher than $200 prior to the split. This information has been prepared by IG, a trading name of IG Markets Limited.

IG accepts no responsibility for any use that may be made of these comments and for any consequences that result. No representation or warranty is given as to the accuracy or completeness of this information. Consequently any person acting on it does so entirely at their own risk. Any research provided does not have regard to the specific investment objectives, financial situation and needs of any specific person who may receive it. It has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such is considered to be a marketing communication.

Although we are not specifically constrained from dealing ahead of our recommendations we do not seek to take advantage of them before they are provided to our clients. While Apple has not given an official reason for 2020's split, it is likely that the company thinks that its high share price could deter new investors. Apple has announced a four-for-one stock split, which is set to take place on 31 August 2020. Here, we explain what this means for investors and take a look at Apple's stock split history. While the split is designed to lower the nominal price per share, split-adjusted Apple stock has a history of short-term sell-offs.

The company's fifth stock split could encourage new investors to buy, but Apple's trading history offers a warning. Investors received four shares for every one share held, resulting in its stock price being quartered — from about $500 last week to about $125 on Monday. In the past, it has been difficult for me to invest in rapidly growing companies.

My years of investing molded me into an inveterate value investor that seeks a margin of safety. Investing in undervalued companies is a means to that end. Microsoft undeniably possesses the first three attributes. It is incumbent upon the individual investor to measure the degree to which the firm defines the fourth. Let us assume you invested in 100 shares of Apple on the first trading day of 1986. That would result in $2200 ($5236 adjusted for inflation) devoted to a company that would experience a variety of ups and downs over more than three decades.

I'm taking a detour here to use Apple's stock split history as an argument for a buy and hold investment strategy. Apparently, a surge in the stock precipitates stock splits. While there was a relatively low increase in share value in 2014, that followed four consecutive years of gains that ranged from 147% to over 25% per annum. Even adjusted for inflation, there doesn't appear to be a price that triggers a stock split, particularly when one considers the last two occasions when the shares split.