string关键字可能使您感到困惑，因为它看起来与任何其他值类型声明完全相同，但它实际上是System的别名。在这个问题中解释的字符串。 此外，Visual Studio中的深蓝色和小写首字母可能会让人误以为它是结构体。

因为字符串变量是引用，而不是实例。

在默认情况下将其初始化为Empty是可能的，但这将在整个板上引入许多不一致。

从c# 6.0开始，您还可以使用以下代码

string myString = null;
string result = myString?.ToUpper();

字符串结果将为空。

String是一个不可变对象，这意味着当给定一个值时，旧的值不会从内存中删除，而是保留在旧的位置，而新值则放在新的位置。如果String a的默认值是String。空，它将浪费字符串。当它被赋予第一个值时，内存中的空块。

虽然它看起来微不足道，但在初始化一个默认值为String.Empty的大型字符串数组时，它可能会变成一个问题。当然，如果这将成为一个问题，您总是可以使用可变的StringBuilder类。

最根本的原因/问题是CLS规范(定义了语言如何与。net交互)的设计者没有定义一种方法，通过这种方法，类成员可以指定它们必须直接被调用，而不是通过callvirt，而调用方不执行空引用检查;它也没有提供一种定义不受“正常”装箱约束的结构的方法。

Had the CLS specification defined such a means, then it would be possible for .net to consistently follow the lead established by the Common Object Model (COM), under which a null string reference was considered semantically equivalent to an empty string, and for other user-defined immutable class types which are supposed to have value semantics to likewise define default values. Essentially, what would happen would be for each member of String, e.g. Length to be written as something like [InvokableOnNull()] int String Length { get { if (this==null) return 0; else return _Length;} }. This approach would have offered very nice semantics for things which should behave like values, but because of implementation issues need to be stored on the heap. The biggest difficulty with this approach is that the semantics of conversion between such types and Object could get a little murky.

An alternative approach would have been to allow the definition of special structure types which did not inherit from Object but instead had custom boxing and unboxing operations (which would convert to/from some other class type). Under such an approach, there would be a class type NullableString which behaves as string does now, and a custom-boxed struct type String, which would hold a single private field Value of type String. Attempting to convert a String to NullableString or Object would return Value if non-null, or String.Empty if null. Attempting to cast to String, a non-null reference to a NullableString instance would store the reference in Value (perhaps storing null if the length was zero); casting any other reference would throw an exception.

Even though strings have to be stored on the heap, there is conceptually no reason why they shouldn't behave like value types that have a non-null default value. Having them be stored as a "normal" structure which held a reference would have been efficient for code that used them as type "string", but would have added an extra layer of indirection and inefficiency when casting to "object". While I don't foresee .net adding either of the above features at this late date, perhaps designers of future frameworks might consider including them.

为什么c#的设计者选择使用null作为的默认值 字符串?

因为字符串是引用类型，引用类型的默认值是null。引用类型的变量存储对实际数据的引用。

在这种情况下，让我们使用default关键字;

string str = default(string); 

STR是一个字符串，所以它是一个引用类型，所以默认值是null。

int str = (default)(int);

STR是int型，所以它是一个值类型，所以默认值是0。