LINQ: What is the purpose of var?

Larsenal, a C9’er posted a comment on the C9 forums about the Introducing LINQ video and asked a really good question so I thought I should repost my response here.

Larsenal's Question
I've watched this video on LINQ in C#.  If the type is set at compile time, what's the benefit of using the "var" keyword?  It seems like it just makes the code less readable.

I look at the first example here, and wonder why not just replace the var with string[]?”

My (slightly modified) Answer
If you’ve never heard of var, var is a new way to declare variables in C# 3.0 that uses implicit typing. Let’s show a quick couple of examples.

Before 3.0
string myString = “hello”;
int myInt = 5;
float myFloat = 5.5f;

After 3.0
var myString = “hello”;
var myInt = 5;
var myFloat = 5.5f;

The distinction here is that var is not the same as object, or the JavaScript “var” data type as it’s actually strongly typed, but inferred from whatever the value is being assigned.

Create your own types with var
The big reason for var in my opinion is that LINQ enables you to create or "project" wholly new data types without having to create the type themselves. This is known as projection.

Let's look at a sample query that I blogged about earlier:

string[] aBunchOfWords = {"One","Two", "Hello", "World", "Four", "Five"};

var result =
from s in aBunchOfWords
where s.Length == 5
select s;

In this example, I am projecting the string "s",  so I could have easily replaced var with the type IEnumerable<string> as shown in bold below and my code would have worked fine.

IEnumerable<string> result =
from s in aBunchOfWords
where s.Length == 5
select s;

But what if I wanted to project something more complex, like a type that contains 
1) the string
2) the length of the string as an integer
3) the first three characters of the substring

Using the power of var, this is pretty easy as shown in bold below:

var result =
from s in aBunchOfWords
where s.Length == 5
//Creates a new anonymous type with name/value pairs
new {Value=s, Length=s.Length, FirstThreeLetters=s.Substring(0,3)};

//Print values 
(var x in result)
Console.WriteLine("Value: {0}, Length:{1}, SubString:{2}",
x.Value, x.Length, x.FirstThreeLetters);

This prints:
Value: Hello, Length:5, SubString:Hel
Value: World, Length:5, SubString:Wor

As you can see, I can use "select new" and project my own custom type with field name/value pairs. Under the covers var infers the field names, field values, and field data types and creates an anonymous type with the three fields I projected.

Without var, you would have to create the anonymous type yourself, which basically means you have to create a custom class for the projected type as shown below:

public class MyType
  public string Value;
  public int Length;
  public string FirstThreeLetters;

The subsequent code would work like shown below (using another new feature, object initializers):

IEnumerable<MyType> result =
from s in aBunchOfWords
where s.Length == 5
select new MyType {Value=s, Length=s.Length, FirstThreeLetters=s.Substring(0,3)};

While I get the same results as in the previous example, you can see how var saves me the trouble of defining my own type. In the var example, the compiler is creating its own version of the "MyType" class, but you as a LINQ developer don't need to worry about that, but If you really don't like var, you can of course manually create your own class and map them to LINQ queries as I showed above and everything will still "just work".

When you're dealing with projection, var is awesome in that it really eliminates the grunt work of defining your own type, which, when you get to nested types can be pretty ugly 🙂

You can find a whole slew of projection operator samples at:


Comments (19)
  1. Don says:

    Can you pass a var to a function? Is that legal? If so, how does the compiler handle the type in the called method?

    void foo()


    var waffle = "yummy";

    bar( waffle ); // allowed?

    car( waffle ); // allowed?


    void bar( string x )



    void car( var x )



  2. Its even cooler that you can also omit the field names and directly do a

    var highlyPaid =

    from e in employees

    where e.Salary.Base > 10000

    select new {e.Name, e.Salary.Base };

    But since you cannot pass around var and its really really rare that you’ll process all your data in the same method where you retrieved it using LINQ you’ll anyway be forced to create a class to encapsulate the data to pass it back up to the caller

  3. ben says:

    Thank you, this example is way better than any other example I’ve seen of the use of ‘var’. Using ‘var’ for ints, strings, or floats isn’t really that interesting and it makes no logical sense why you would use ‘var’ in those cases, but your example definitely shows the power that it can have, thanks

  4. Hugo says:

    I have my doubts about the use of var for ints, strings, etc. too.

    Why not restrict the use of var in C# 3.0 to LINQ constructs?

  5. Lee says:

    Well i’m gonna say I don’t like this var language construct. I can understand its uses in the context of annonymous types but for anything else it’s worrying. I wouldn’t want to see it used for say:

    var x = someObject.SomeMethod()

    The only way I would know what ‘x’ is in this context is to hover over it or go to the definition of ‘SomeMethod’. It smacks of bad code readability to me. If for some reason ‘SomeMethod’ had its return type changed then there’s no easy way of seeing what the original ‘x’ was other than going to source control; Yuk! Maybe it would be a better idea to only allow ‘var’ to be used with annonymous types only.

  6. RonO says:


    While it shows the power, I feel the term ‘var’ is going to cause all sorts of confusion. I believe many developers are going to see ‘var’ and think ‘untyped’ even though the variable is strongly typed. ‘var’ has a history and for this reason another term should be chosen.

  7. J Miller says:

    How many people are thinking, "I like "var" as a programming shortcut for me but I utterly despise "var" as a programming shortcut for other people."?

    To that end…

    1) Visual Studio 2008 should have a "Refactor… Var to Contract-Bound Type" option that will create a new type for a var and replace the var with the IEnumerable<newType>.

    2) Static Code Analysis should then tell anybody analyzing their code with "var" in it to use the bloody refactoring as that’s what it’s there for.

  8. I agree that the var keyword does remind one of variant and other horrible legacy stuff 🙂

    So maybe we should call it ‘infer’, because that is what happens.

    infer a = new List<MyGeneric<OtherGeneric<int, string>>>();

    Also as another example, it saves a lot of typing and repeating here

  9. Richard Hein says:

    Hi Lee,

    If someone changes the return type of the method to the point where it will break code that tries to access some property on this new anonymous type you’ve created (and now it’s no longer there, as you are describing, the code won’t compile. It’s type-safe! That’s the key here that people seem to be missing.

  10. Gary Hoffer says:

    I like the "infer" keyword as opposed to "var" but how about nothing. I have always hated the redundancy of typing:

    DataGrid fred = new DataGrid();

    Instead of something simpler like:

    fred = new DataGrid();

    where fred is infered to be a DataGrid.

    especially where instead of DataGrid you have to see:

    System.Windows.Form.Datagrid twice.

    Call me heritical but I also believe that specifying parameters with types is reminiscent of C and unnecessary. Whatever is passed in is what it is. Automagically changing type is forbidden.

  11. MicrosoftChap says:

    Your demostration and opinion of why to use "vars" is great and i appreciate it

  12. There is a new type called var in C# 3.0. Var simply means that the compiler infers the type from whatever

  13. John Thompson says:

    Var seems to be a right hash to me. There are reasons for strong typing such as reducing runtime errors and making code more readable. All a var does is create a situation where you have an object that you cannot be sure what you have in it. If that does not take IT back 40 years I don’t know what does.

    I come to this because I am trying to implement the ItemCreated event on an ASP.Net repeater control when the repeater is abound to the results of a LINQ query.

    If I debug into the RepeaterItemEventArgs parameter e.Item.DataItem I can see that the data is in there, but I cannot use a LINQ select, or a type conversion or anything to get the data out.

    In short no one will discuss how to get your data out of a var other than in the routine that created it, which is, lets face it, a critical reason for creating data in the first place. Are we supposed to write our entire applications in one subroutine now.

  14. John Thompson says:

    There is not a lot of point in having an object if you cannot access the data in it, which is the case if you try to return a var from a subroutine. You certainly cannot write your entire application in one subroutine so that you can see the contents of you var object.

    Even if a type is generated on the fly (or automatically) it should be a propertly named type so that you can access its members and even create new instance. I realise that the overhead of actually doing this would kill VS, but it is necessary. Surely?

  15. Maxx says:

    It seems to me that the only use of Linq to SQL is that you can get, within one subroutine, OOP-style access to data. Beyond that, one must still declare some their own classes and copy the data into instances before it can be passed around to other functions.

    If that’s not the case, I’d really love to see an example. I have yet to see a code snippet that was more than a "hello world".

  16. Maurice Flanagan says:

    Dan, this is exactly what I was looking for. I’m using this to project a complex business object collection into a BindingSource.DataSource which I pass back to a DataGridView – very productive and the code is much cleaner.

  17. Jonathan Camilleri says:

    Why is the following code not compiling am I missing out a declaration?

    using System.Collections.Generic;

    using System.Linq;

    using System.Text;

    namespace TestLoopOverInts


       class Program


           int[] numbers = { 10, 20, 30, 40, 1, 2, 3, 8 };

           // get numbers less than ten

           var subset = from i in numbers where i < 10 select i;

           static void Main(string[] args)





  18. @Jonathan – The reason why is that you don't have the code inside of the Main{…} method. Once you put the code inside the Main method, it will work.

    namespace LinqQuestion


       class Program


           static void Main(string[] args)


               //numbers and subset variables moved inside this Main Method

               // get numbers less than ten

               int[] numbers = { 10, 20, 30, 40, 1, 2, 3, 8 };

               var subset = from i in numbers where i < 10 select i;

               foreach (var item in subset)








Comments are closed.

Skip to main content