Develop Reference

Try Catch or If statement?

if you think there is a possibility of getting a null pointer exception, should you use an if statement to make sure the variable is not null, or should you just catch the exception?
I don't see any difference as you can put your logic to deal with the null pointer in the if statement, or in the catch block, so which one is best practise?

I would say ALWAYS use logic to catch the exception, not try/catch.
Try/Catch should be used when you validate but some strange thing happens and something causes an error so you can handle it more gracefully.

There is no single answer that will suffice here, it depends.
Let's take a few scenarios so you can see what I mean.
Scenario: Method that takes a reference type parameter that does not accept null
You're defining a method, it takes a reference type parameter, say a stream object, and you don't want to accept null as a legal input parameter.
In this case, I would say that the contract is that null is not a valid input. If some code does in fact call that method with a null reference, the contract is broken.
This is an exception, more specifically, it's an ArgumentNullException.
Example:
public void Write(Stream stream)
{
if (stream == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("stream");
...
I would definitely not just let the code execute until it tries to dereference the stream in this case, instead crashing with a NullReferenceException, because at that point I lost all ability to react when I know the cause.
Q. Why can't I return false instead of throwing an exception?
A. Because a return value is easy to silently ignore, do you really want your "Write" methods to just silently skip writing because you made a snafu in the calling code, passing the wrong stream object or something that cannot be written to? I wouldn't!
Scenario: Method returns a reference to an object, sometimes there is no object
In this case the contract is that null is a legal result. In my opinion, null is something to avoid because it is quite hard to make sure you handle correctly everywhere, but sometimes it is the best way.
In this case I would make sure to if my way around the result, to ensure I don't crash when the null reference comes back.
Generalisation
If you take a close look at the above two scenarios, you'll note one thing:
In both cases it comes down to what is being expected, what the contract is.
If the contract says "not null", throw an exception. Don't fall back to the old-style API way of returning false because an exceptional problem should not be silently ignored, and littering the code with if statements to ensure every method call succeeds does not make for readable code.
If the contract says "null is entirely possible", handle it with if statements.
Advertising
For getting a better grip on null problems, I would also urge you to get ReSharper for you and your team, but please note that this answer can be applied to any type of exception and error handling, the same principles applies.
With it comes attributes you can embed into your project(s) to flag these cases, and then ReSharper will highlight the code in question.
public void Write([NotNull] Stream stream)
[CanBeNull]
public SomeObject GetSomeObject()
To read more about the contract attributes that ReSharper uses, see
ReSharper NullReferenceException Analysis and Its Contracts
Contract Annotations in ReSharper 7

Well. Exceptions are just that. Exceptions. They are thrown when something unforseen has happened and should not be part of the normal program flow.
And that's what is happening here. You expected the argument to be specified when it's not. That is unexpected and you should therefore throw your own exception informing the user of that. If you want to get bonus points you can also include the reason to WHY the argument must be specified (if it's not obvious).
I've written a series of posts about exceptions: http://blog.gauffin.org/2013/04/what-is-exceptions/

From a performance standpoint it really depends what you're doing. The performance impact from a try/catch block when no exception is thrown is minimal (and if you really need that last few percent of performance, you probably should rewrite that part of your code in C++ anyway). Throwing exceptions does have a major impact on simpler operations such as string manipulation; but once you get file/database operations in the loop they're so much slower that again it becomes a trivial penalty. Throwing across an App Domain will have a non-trivial impact on just about anything though.
Performance in Operations/second:
Mode/operation Empty String File Database Complex
No exception 17,748,206 267,300 2,461 877 239
Catch without exception 15,415,757 261,456 2,476 871 236
Throw 103,456 68,952 2,236 864 236
Rethrow original 53,481 41,889 2,324 852 230
Throw across AppDomain 3,073 2,942 930 574 160
Additional test results along with the source for the tests is available from the article Performance implications of Exceptions in .NET

I would rather suggest you use if-statement for NullReference exception. For other exception, try-catch should be good enough.
The reason I suggest if-statement for NullReference exception is because C# will not tell which variable is null. if that line has more than one object could be null, you will loss track. If you are using if-statement, you can have better logging to help you get the enough information.

The main Question is if it is a good idea to have methods returning Null at all, personally i do not have any problem with this, but as soon as you try to access modifiers of an object returned from this method and you forget to check if it is assigned this becomes an issue.
Ken has a good answer about this:
If you are always expecting to find a value then throw the exception
if it is missing. The exception would mean that there was a problem.
If the value can be missing or present and both are valid for the
application logic then return a null.
See this disscussion abou tthis issue:
Returning null is usually the best idea if you intend to indicate that
no data is available.
An empty object implies data has been returned, whereas returning null
clearly indicates that nothing has been returned.
Additionally, returning a null will result in a null exception if you
attempt to access members in the object, which can be useful for
highlighting buggy code - attempting to access a member of nothing
makes no sense. Accessing members of an empty object will not fail
meaning bugs can go undiscovered.
Some further reading:
No Null Beyond Method Scope
Should We Return Null From Our Methods?

using try catch for the statements is not an good idea. because when you use try catch them it seems that if some error comes the code will not turninate the application. but if you are sure about what kind of error can come you can tap the error at that point. that will not produce any unknown errors. for example.
string name = null;
here i am going to use the name variable and i am sure that this will throw Null Refrance Error .
try
{
Console.writeLine("Name ={0}",name);
}
catch (NullRefranceException nex)
{
//handle the error
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
// handle error to prevent application being crashed.
}
This is not a good practice while you can handle this kind of error and make your code more readable. like.
if(name !=null)
Console.writeLine("Name ={0}",name);

In my experience using if is better but only if you actually expect a null reference pointer. Without any bit of code or context its difficult to say when one option is better than the other.
There's also a matter of optimization - code in try-catch blocks won't be optimized.

In general, try-catch blocks are great because they will break (move to the catch statement) whenever the exception occurs. If-else blocks rely on you predicting when the error will happen.
Also, catch blocks won't stop your code from halting when an error is hit.

Its always better to use Try Catch other than if else
Here Exceptions are two types namely handled and UN-handled exceptions
Even if u want to handle some function when the Exception u can handle it...
Handled exception always allows you to write some implementations inside the Catch block
Eg. An Alert Message, A new Function to handle when such exception occurs.

Is it possible an Exception object raising another exception due to its internal error?

Is it possible an Exception object raising another exception due to its internal error?
Assume in try-catch we instantiate Exception object, is it possible the instantiation raising another exception? If yes, we must nest infinitely try-catch blocks that looks so funny.

In short, the answer is yes, it is possible.
For example - if the exception class requires a large object to be initialized as a field, but there is not enough memory to allocate it, you will get an exception object that would throw an OutOfMemoryException.
Exceptions are like any other class and can in themselves throw exceptions. There is nothing in the language that disallows it.
I would say, however, that throwing exceptions from an exception class it bad practice and should generally be avoided.
Update: (following updated question)
If you are instantiating an exception object in a try block, the catch will catch it (assuming it catches the appropriate type of exception). If you are instantiating it in the catch block, you may want to do that in a nested try{}catch{} - this is quite normal for code used in a catch block that can throw exceptions.
As others have said - some exceptions should not be caught (for instance OutOfMemory or unexpected StackOverflow), as you don't have a way to deal with them.

Yes - certainly it is possible for an exception itself to raise an exception.
However, most (not all) of the framework exceptions are pretty lightweight things with very little internal logic, so the average exception probably doesn't have a lot of scope to generate exceptions itself.
Is this a framework exception you are seeing this behaviour with? Can you give us some details?
A quick look at the internals of the exception with a tool like Reflector may well help you spot what, if anything, is going on.

Yes, it's possible although not very typical. If the exception being thrown has an error in the constructor, or depends upon missing classes, then it itself throw an exception.
It's easy to test this: create your own exception that attempts to call a method an null reference. When you instantiate the exception, it will throw a NullReferenceException.

Yes. This is possible.
But I wonder why one would ever want to do this ? Exceptions are just for communicating errors so practically by design, they cannot have any serious code or logic running within them that can cause an exception. If you're argument is, you might want to log the exception into database or disk which might cause an exception in some conditions, then I'd not even agree to that since the exception should be logged in the catch block.

If you are thinking that the exception object should attempt handle the situation and throw another exception if it couldn't you are incorrect.
The catch block should handle the incorrect situation and throw the exception further away if it can't do so.
Example:
try
{
BigResource r = new BigResource();
}
catch(BigResourceException e)
{
bool cannotHandle = false;
// Handle exception here
if (cannotHandle)
throw e;
}

Whether to check for null

I know that you should always check incoming params to a method for null. But what if I have this scenario with a try/catch referring to a local variable. Do I really need to check for null below? Because it's gonna catch it anyway if it's null and the next line of code tries to use the refundResponse variable:
public string DoRefund(...)
{
try
{
......
string refundTransactionID = string.Empty;
......
RefundTransactionResponseType refundResponse = transaction.DoRefund(...);
if (refundResponse != null)
refundTransactionID = refundResponse.RefundTransactionID;
.....
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
LogError(ex);
return ex.ToString();
}
}
Remember I'm talking specifically about local variables and checking those inside a method, not incoming params to a method.
All I'm asking here is do I need to check for null before setting refundTransactionID or do I just set it without the if assuming that the compiler will handle and throw if it is null which will be caught and thrown back as a string to the caller in this case.
or should it be
if (refundResponse == null)
return null;
or just take the check out completely for this local variable assignment and then since in this case I have a try/catch I'm handling any exceptions picked up by the compiler naturally by returning the exception as a string to the caller (it was not my decision to send back a string, it was a requirement by my boss...so bypass that debate for now):
refundTransactionID = refundResponse.RefundTransactionID;
ultimately the rest of the code further down the line in the method is dependent on a valid refundTransactionID.

Exceptions are for exceptional conditions. If you can check for a continuable error, do so, please!

I know that you should always check
incoming params to a method for null.
No, not necessarily. What you should specify is the contract of your method. It's perfectly acceptable (and common) to specify that you'll throw a NullPointer/NullReferenceException for a null parameter. Then you don't need any checking.
You can also check for null, but this only makes sense if you can actually handle a null usefully (e.g. substitute a default value).

You should have to check for null in that instance. Your application logic should be able to handle these kind of situations, without the need for exceptions.

An alternative to testing is the Null Object pattern. Instead of returning Null, or a valid transaction, the transaction::DoRefund() method returns a null object: an object that offers the same interface as the RefundTransactionResponseType instances, but its methods do nothing. With this there is no need to test whether for Null.
The should be used wisely as this can easily hide problems.

No you don't need to check for null, there. That opens up another question, though, do you really need to check for null in incoming parameters?
Remember: that's a behavior. You have to test that behavior.

But if you can't continue at that point let the exception propogate.

No, doesn't look like you should check for null here. And I also wouldn't check for null for ALL incoming parameters (as your description suggests).
It's also odd that you're returning a transactionID as a string OR the message of an exception. How will the caller of this method know if an exception happened?
If you really want to log the exception, how about something like this:
public string DoRefund(...)
{
try
{
return transaction.DoRefund(...).RefundTransactionID;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
LogError(ex);
throw ex;
}
}

You should check for null rather than letting the exception handling handle it. As leppie said, exceptions are for exceptional conditions not normal flow of control. If you know what issues can occur then you should gracefully handle them.
Another thing to keep in mind is the performance impact of exceptions. When the exception is thrown the JVM has to unwind the call stack. In your example the exception is then also logged. All of this takes time and is much slower than a simple "if" check.

I'd suggest checking for the null then doing some kind of soft error handling instead of just letting it catch and throwing an error message.

It depends on what it means to your program when (refundResponse == null). If this has some meaning, then it makes sense to report a more informative error. If it should never happen and would indicate a flaw in the DoRefund method, then I think it's fine to allow the null to cause an exception later. In the latter case, I'd only have a specific check if you're suspicious of the method and whether it's behaving as it's supposed to.

throw new Exception vs Catch block

Is there any behavioural difference between:
if (s == null) // s is a string
{
throw new NullReferenceException();
}
And:
try
{
Console.Writeline(s);
}
catch (NullReferenceException Ex)
{ // logic in here
}
Both throw exceptions of null object, if s is null. The first example is more readable as it shows exactly where the error occurs (the exception bit is right next to the line which will cause the exception).
I have seen this coding style a lot on various blogs by various coders of all sorts of skill levels, but why not just perform the main logic by checking if s is not null and thus save the exception from ever being raised? Is there a downside to this approach?
Thanks

No, Console.WriteLine(null) won't throw an exception. It will just print nothing out. Now assuming you meant something like:
Console.WriteLine(s.Length);
then it makes sense... and you should use the first form. Exceptions should occur when you can't predict them ahead of time with your current information. If you can easily work out that something's wrong, it makes no sense to try an operation which is bound to fail. It leads to code which is harder to understand and performs worse.
So NullReferenceException, ArgumentNullException and the like shouldn't be caught unless they're due to a nasty API which sometimes throws exceptions which you can handle, but which shouldn't really be being thrown in the first place. This is why in Code Contracts, the default behaviour for a failed contract is to throw an exception which you can't catch explicitly, other than by catching everything (which is typically somewhere at the top of the stack).

As Jon Skeet already mentioned, Console.WriteLine (null) won't throw an exception.
Next to that, I'd like to say that you should 'fail fast'. That means that you have to put 'guard' clauses in your methods, and check the arguments that have been given in your methods if they can be considered to be valid.
This allows you to throw an exception yourself, and give an additional message which will be helpfull when debugging. The message can give a clear indication on what was wrong, and that is much handier then if you're faced with a NullReferenceException that has been thrown without any good information in it's message property.

If you are writing a class library there may be occasions when you know that if a certain parameter contains a null value, that may cause trouble further down the line. In those cases I usually find it to be a good idea to throw an exception (even though I would probably use ArgumentNullException for that case) to make the user of the class library aware of this as early and clearly as possible.
Exceptions are not always a bad thing.

Jon Skeet is right but, more generally, it's all a question of semantic.
If the situation has some applicative meaning (number out of bound, date of birth in the future, etc) you may want to test for it before doing any operation and throw a custom exception (that is one with meaning for your application).
If the situation is truly "exceptional", just write the code as if the given value were correct. See, if you put the test, you will do it everytime, knowing that the VM will do it anyway in case it needs to throw an exception. From a performance point of view, if the error happens to have a statistically small occurence, it makes no sense.

If you're taking a Design By Contract type approach to things then a piece of code can specify that it throws exceptions in order to specify its contract and to enforce it. The other half is, of course, calling code recognising the contract and fulfilling it.
In this case it would mean that if you know a method will throw an exception if you pass in null (i.e. its contract is that you don't pass nulls) then you should check before calling it.
Jon Skeet says that the method won't throw an exception anyway. That may or may not be true but the principle of guarding for method contract stands (which I believe was the point of your question).

Whether to create a custom exception or wait to occur NullReferenceException down the line?

I am confused. Whether to create a custom exception or .Net base class library has the relevant exception?
I am calling some kind of service or framework API and it returns back a null reference which is an exceptional case for my tier. I know that the system won't be able to proceed with null reference and I should get a NullReferenceException down the line if I proceed.
So, should I create a custom exception at that point or should I wait to occur the NullPointerReference?
See the code snippet below
Organization organization = OrganizationService.GetOrganizationById("123");
this.SetOrders(organization.Id); // This will give me NullReferenceException
please guide me.
Thanks and regards
123Developer

In general, its good practice to catch errors as soon as possible and handle them in the best manner possible - either by using default values to work around the error, or informing the user that you cannot proceed.
So in this specific case, if i understand correctly, i would test the variable for null, and if its null do not continue - bail out gracefully.

NullPointerReference exceptions are always hard to debug and should be avoided whenever possible. In certain cases you could use ArgumentNullException, if the "null" value is one of the passed parameters. Not in your case though and that's where I would recommend a custom exception.

Throw an InvalidOperationException if it has nothing to do with any arguments passed to your method, or an ArgumentException otherwise. Do this as soon as is reasonably possible, to avoid accidentally corrupting your state.
Aside from anything else, this allows you to give a more useful message, indicating what couldn't be found.

as a general rule you should only catch exceptions down the stack if you can add meaning to the exception itself.
In your particular case, I would suggest that you check the value for null, and throw an appropriate exception yourself (possibly an InvalidOperationException with a message of "Organization not found"?)

I often design a DataNotFoundException that is thrown when a get-operation based on an object ID fails. My rationale for doing so is that ID's are typically not entered by the user, but used only in the code, so if a search is performed using a non-existing ID the input is bad, and I want to signal that in a clear manner.