Is it safe to assume an Integer will always be 32 bits in VB.Net?

Question

Related:

Is it safe to assume an int will always be 32 bits in C#?

The linked question asks whether it is "safe to assume that an int will always be 32 bits in C#". The accepted answer states that "the C# specification rigidly defines that int is an alias for System.Int32 with exactly 32 bits".

My question is this: does this hold true for VB.Net's Integer? Is it safe to assume that Integer will always be an alias for int32?

score 7 · Accepted Answer · answered Jul 01 '11 at 13:29

7

Yes.
The Integer type will never change.

The spec (7.3 Primitive Types) says:

The integral value types Byte (1-byte unsigned integer), Short (2-byte signed integer), Integer (4-byte signed integer), and Long (8-byte signed integer). These types map to System.Byte, System.Int16, System.Int32, and System.Int64, respectively. The default value of an integral type is equivalent to the literal 0.

answered Jul 01 '11 at 13:29

SLaks

868,454
176
1,908
1,964

Thanks for the link. For reference, it's in section 7.3 of the VB.Net 2008 (.NET 3.5/VB 9) spec as well. – Brian Beckett Jul 01 '11 at 13:58
AFAIK, the newer specs aren't deep-linkable online (they're only available as Word documents) – SLaks Jul 01 '11 at 14:02

score 0 · Answer 2 · answered Jul 01 '11 at 13:31

0

VB.Net doesn't have an "int", it has an "Integer" type. The Integer type is an alias for System.Int32. So no, this will not change.

answered Jul 01 '11 at 13:31

Joel Coehoorn

399,467
113
570
794

Is it safe to assume an Integer will always be 32 bits in VB.Net?

2 Answers2