What is the modern analogue for a two-dimensional string array?

Question

I'm refactoring some legacy code that uses a 2D string array:

/// <summary>Array of valid server messages</summary>
private static string[,] serverRsp =
{
    {"JOIN",            "RSP" }, 
    {"SETTING",     "RSP" }, 
    . . .

I want to modernize this, but don't know if I should use a Dictionary, a List of list of string, or something else. Is there a standard correlation between the "olden" way and the golden way (legacy vs. refactored)?

IWBN (it would be nice) if there was a chart somewhere that showed the olden vs. the golden for data types and structures, etc.

What problem are you having with the 2D array that makes you want to change it? — japreiss, Dec 16 '14 at 18:11
This looks like Key Value Pair, If your Key is unique then Use Dictionary, Also why do you think using 2D array is a problem ? — Habib, Dec 16 '14 at 18:12
how can you possibly say that without knowing how the array is used in code? what if the only purpose of the array is to iterate over it and print every line? would you still choose a dictionary? — japreiss, Dec 16 '14 at 18:14
@Habib: Ah, yes, I had forgotten about KVP; that's the ticket, I reckon! — B. Clay Shannon-B. Crow Raven, Dec 16 '14 at 18:15
There's no built in type that behaves the same as a 2D array, but there might be a data structure that is more appropriate depending on what the data is and how it will be used. — juharr, Dec 16 '14 at 18:16

score 3 · Accepted Answer · edited Dec 17 '14 at 14:20

3

[,] is not an "old" datastructure, and hopefully will never become. Keep using it whenever appropriate.

For example:

just in this case have a List<List<T>> is much more confusing then having simple 2 dimensional array.
It's lighter then List<T>in terms of memory consumption (at least from my measurements).

In short: if there is no any real reason, or new requirement to change it, like make it faster O(1) access data structure key-value store (for non index, hence key like, fast access), do not change it. It is clear and it is readable.

edited Dec 17 '14 at 14:20

Bill the Lizard

398,270
210
566
880

answered Dec 16 '14 at 18:15

Tigran

61,654
8
86
123

Arrays already allow O(1) access to elements. – O. R. Mapper Dec 16 '14 at 18:23
@O.R.Mapper: I wrote "key value store", so O(1) access non by index. – Tigran Dec 16 '14 at 18:23
Yes - your text *could* be understood as if a key-value store might be faster than an array due to having O(1) access. – O. R. Mapper Dec 16 '14 at 18:24
1

`List>` doesn't force every inner list to be the same length any way, it's a closer analogue to a jagged array. – Preston Guillot Dec 16 '14 at 18:37

What is the modern analogue for a two-dimensional string array?

1 Answers1