+= new EventHandler(Method) vs += Method [duplicate]

Since there seemed to be some dispute over my original answer, I decided to do a few tests, including looking at the generated code and monitoring the performance.

First of all, here's our test bed, a class with a delegate and another class to consume it:

class EventProducer
{
    public void Raise()
    {
        var handler = EventRaised;
        if (handler != null)
            handler(this, EventArgs.Empty);
    }

    public event EventHandler EventRaised;
}

class Counter
{
    long count = 0;
    EventProducer producer = new EventProducer();

    public void Count()
    {
        producer.EventRaised += CountEvent;
        producer.Raise();
        producer.EventRaised -= CountEvent;
    }

    public void CountWithNew()
    {
        producer.EventRaised += new EventHandler(CountEvent);
        producer.Raise();
        producer.EventRaised -= new EventHandler(CountEvent);
    }

    private void CountEvent(object sender, EventArgs e)
    {
        count++;
    }
}

First thing to do is look at the generated IL:

.method public hidebysig instance void Count() cil managed
{
    .maxstack 8
    L_0000: ldarg.0 
    L_0001: ldfld class DelegateTest.Program/EventProducer DelegateTest.Program/Counter::producer
    L_0006: ldarg.0 
    L_0007: ldftn instance void DelegateTest.Program/Counter::CountEvent(object, class [mscorlib]System.EventArgs)
    L_000d: newobj instance void [mscorlib]System.EventHandler::.ctor(object, native int)
    L_0012: callvirt instance void DelegateTest.Program/EventProducer::add_EventRaised(class [mscorlib]System.EventHandler)
    L_0017: ldarg.0 
    L_0018: ldfld class DelegateTest.Program/EventProducer DelegateTest.Program/Counter::producer
    L_001d: callvirt instance void DelegateTest.Program/EventProducer::Raise()
    L_0022: ldarg.0 
    L_0023: ldfld class DelegateTest.Program/EventProducer DelegateTest.Program/Counter::producer
    L_0028: ldarg.0 
    L_0029: ldftn instance void DelegateTest.Program/Counter::CountEvent(object, class [mscorlib]System.EventArgs)
    L_002f: newobj instance void [mscorlib]System.EventHandler::.ctor(object, native int)
    L_0034: callvirt instance void DelegateTest.Program/EventProducer::remove_EventRaised(class [mscorlib]System.EventHandler)
    L_0039: ret 
}

.method public hidebysig instance void CountWithNew() cil managed
{
    .maxstack 8
    L_0000: ldarg.0 
    L_0001: ldfld class DelegateTest.Program/EventProducer DelegateTest.Program/Counter::producer
    L_0006: ldarg.0 
    L_0007: ldftn instance void DelegateTest.Program/Counter::CountEvent(object, class [mscorlib]System.EventArgs)
    L_000d: newobj instance void [mscorlib]System.EventHandler::.ctor(object, native int)
    L_0012: callvirt instance void DelegateTest.Program/EventProducer::add_EventRaised(class [mscorlib]System.EventHandler)
    L_0017: ldarg.0 
    L_0018: ldfld class DelegateTest.Program/EventProducer DelegateTest.Program/Counter::producer
    L_001d: callvirt instance void DelegateTest.Program/EventProducer::Raise()
    L_0022: ldarg.0 
    L_0023: ldfld class DelegateTest.Program/EventProducer DelegateTest.Program/Counter::producer
    L_0028: ldarg.0 
    L_0029: ldftn instance void DelegateTest.Program/Counter::CountEvent(object, class [mscorlib]System.EventArgs)
    L_002f: newobj instance void [mscorlib]System.EventHandler::.ctor(object, native int)
    L_0034: callvirt instance void DelegateTest.Program/EventProducer::remove_EventRaised(class [mscorlib]System.EventHandler)
    L_0039: ret 
}

So it turns out that, yes, these do generate identical IL. I was wrong originally. But that's not the whole story. It may be that I'm going off-topic here but I think that it's important to include this when talking about events and delegates:

Creating and comparing different delegates is not cheap.

When I wrote this, I was thinking that the first syntax was able to cast the method group as a delegate, but it turns out that it's just a conversion. But it's completely different when you actually save the delegate. If we add this to the consumer:

class Counter
{
    EventHandler savedEvent;

    public Counter()
    {
        savedEvent = CountEvent;
    }

    public void CountSaved()
    {
        producer.EventRaised += savedEvent;
        producer.Raise();
        producer.EventRaised -= savedEvent;
    }
}

You can see that this has very different characteristics, performance-wise, from the other two:

static void Main(string[] args)
{
    const int TestIterations = 10000000;

    TimeSpan countTime = TestCounter(c => c.Count());
    Console.WriteLine("Count: {0}", countTime);

    TimeSpan countWithNewTime = TestCounter(c => c.CountWithNew());
    Console.WriteLine("CountWithNew: {0}", countWithNewTime);

    TimeSpan countSavedTime = TestCounter(c => c.CountSaved());
    Console.WriteLine("CountSaved: {0}", countSavedTime);

    Console.ReadLine();
}

static TimeSpan TestCounter(Action<Counter> action, int iterations)
{
    var counter = new Counter();
    Stopwatch sw = new Stopwatch();
    sw.Start();
    for (int i = 0; i < TestIterations; i++)
        action(counter);
    sw.Stop();
    return sw.Elapsed;
}

The results consistently come back as something similar to:

Count: 00:00:02.4742007
CountWithNew: 00:00:02.4272702
CountSaved: 00:00:01.9810367

That's nearly a 20% difference when using a saved delegate vs. creating a new one.

Now obviously not every program is going to be adding and removing this many delegates in such a small amount of time, but if you're writing library classes - classes that might be used in ways you cannot predict - then you really want to keep this difference in mind if you ever need to add and remove events (and I've written a lot of code that does this, personally).

So the conclusion of this is, writing SomeEvent += new EventHandler(NamedMethod) compiles to the same thing as just SomeEvent += NamedMethod. But if you plan to remove that event handler later, you really should save the delegate. Even though the Delegate class has some special-case code that allows you to remove a referentially-different delegate from the one you added, it has to do a non-trivial amount of work to pull this off.

If you're not going to save the delegate, then it makes no difference - the compiler ends up creating a new delegate anyway.

There is no difference from a programming perspective, they are each others equivalent. The compiler will pretty much do what you have done on the first line with the second line behind the scenes. So I would always opt for the second approach (less code).

Re: Your Edit

Probably because they feel its better to show developers the proper way of doing things rather than shortcuts. Your guess is as good as mine :)

the second form is syntactic sugar introduced in later versions of c#. the first line will work in every version though