IEquatable<T> lets a structure implement a strongly typed Equals method so no boxing is required. Thus much better performance when using value types with generic collections. Reference types don't benefit as much but the IEquatable<T> implementation does let you avoid a cast from System.
Difference between == and . Equals method in c# The Equality Operator ( ==) is the comparison operator and the Equals() method in C# is used to compare the content of a string. The Equals() method compares only content.
Can we override the equals() method in Java? To compare two objects the object class provides a method with name equals(), this method accepts an object and compares it with the current object. If the references of these two objects are equal, then it returns true else this method returns false.
With value types, you should always override the == operator. Like the Equals method, the default implementation of the == operator uses reflection and is slow. Use the same logic as the Equals method, and you'll get much better performance when you're doing equality comparisons on value types.
The main reason is performance. When generics were introduced in .NET 2.0 they were able to add a bunch of neat classes such as List<T>
, Dictionary<K,V>
, HashSet<T>
, etc. These structures make heavy use of GetHashCode
and Equals
. But for value types this required boxing. IEquatable<T>
lets a structure implement a strongly typed Equals
method so no boxing is required. Thus much better performance when using value types with generic collections.
Reference types don't benefit as much but the IEquatable<T>
implementation does let you avoid a cast from System.Object
which can make a difference if it's called frequently.
As noted on Jared Parson's blog though, you must still implement the standard Object.Equals
and Object.GetHashcode
overrides.
According to the MSDN:
If you implement
IEquatable<T>
, you should also override the base class implementations ofObject.Equals(Object)
andGetHashCode
so that their behavior is consistent with that of theIEquatable<T>.Equals
method. If you do overrideObject.Equals(Object)
, your overridden implementation is also called in calls to the staticEquals(System.Object, System.Object)
method on your class. This ensures that all invocations of theEquals
method return consistent results.
So it seems that there's no real functional difference between the two except that either could be called depending on how the class is used. From a performance standpoint, it's better to use the generic version because there's no boxing/unboxing penalty associated with it.
From a logical standpoint, it's also better to implement the interface. Overriding the object doesn't really tell anyone that your class is actually equatable. The override may just be a do nothing class or a shallow implementation. Using the interface explicitly says, "Hey, this thing is valid for equality checking!" It's just better design.
Extending what Josh said with a practical example. +1 to Josh - I was about to write the same in my answer.
public abstract class EntityBase : IEquatable<EntityBase>
{
public EntityBase() { }
#region IEquatable<EntityBase> Members
public bool Equals(EntityBase other)
{
//Generic implementation of equality using reflection on derived class instance.
return true;
}
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
return this.Equals(obj as EntityBase);
}
#endregion
}
public class Author : EntityBase
{
public Author() { }
}
public class Book : EntityBase
{
public Book() { }
}
This way, I have re-usable Equals() method that works out of the box for all my derived classes.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With