Question

Sometimes, a value must be checked for equality with a constant. In such cases, I’ve always seen the code like this:

if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(text))
{
    if (text == "Some text here")¹
    {
        // Do something here.
    }
}

In my case, I would rather write:

if ("Some text here".Equals(text))
{
    // Do something here.
}

After all, if text is null, Equals will return false, which is expected. The inversion of a constant and a variable feels strange, but is still understandable for a beginner, and avoids the NullReferenceException which would be thrown with text.Equals("Some text here").

Am I missing something?

Why all source code I’ve seen use the syntax from the first example, and never from the second one?

---

^{¹ In real code, it would rather be a constant or a readonly field. To shorten the examples, I put the strings inline.}

Answer 1

In such cases, I’ve always seen the code like this:

You’re right to think that’s odd and unnecessary, because it is. It’s a completely superfluous null or empty check. Frankly, I’d admonish code like that in a code review.

if (text == "Some text here") {
    // Do something here.
}

is perfectly fine and that’s what I’d use.

Am I missing something?

No, you’re not missing anything.

Why all source code I’ve seen use the syntax from the first example, and never from the second one?

Because you’re looking for love in all the wrong places?