Develop Reference

What is the difference between these two casting methods? [duplicate]

Consider the following code:
void Handler(object o, EventArgs e)
{
// I swear o is a string
string s = (string)o; // 1
//-OR-
string s = o as string; // 2
// -OR-
string s = o.ToString(); // 3
}
What is the difference between the three types of casting (okay, the 3rd one is not a casting, but you get the intent). Which one should be preferred?

string s = (string)o; // 1
Throws InvalidCastException if o is not a string. Otherwise, assigns o to s, even if o is null.
string s = o as string; // 2
Assigns null to s if o is not a string or if o is null. For this reason, you cannot use it with value types (the operator could never return null in that case). Otherwise, assigns o to s.
string s = o.ToString(); // 3
Causes a NullReferenceException if o is null. Assigns whatever o.ToString() returns to s, no matter what type o is.
Use 1 for most conversions - it's simple and straightforward. I tend to almost never use 2 since if something is not the right type, I usually expect an exception to occur. I have only seen a need for this return-null type of functionality with badly designed libraries which use error codes (e.g. return null = error, instead of using exceptions).
3 is not a cast and is just a method invocation. Use it for when you need the string representation of a non-string object.

string s = (string)o; Use when something should
definitely be the other thing.
string s = o as string; Use when something might be the other
thing.
string s = o.ToString(); Use when you don't care what
it is but you just want to use the
available string representation.

It really depends on whether you know if o is a string and what you want to do with it. If your comment means that o really really is a string, I'd prefer the straight (string)o cast - it's unlikely to fail.
The biggest advantage of using the straight cast is that when it fails, you get an InvalidCastException, which tells you pretty much what went wrong.
With the as operator, if o isn't a string, s is set to null, which is handy if you're unsure and want to test s:
string s = o as string;
if ( s == null )
{
// well that's not good!
gotoPlanB();
}
However, if you don't perform that test, you'll use s later and have a NullReferenceException thrown. These tend to be more common and a lot harder to track down once they happens out in the wild, as nearly every line dereferences a variable and may throw one. On the other hand, if you're trying to cast to a value type (any primitive, or structs such as DateTime), you have to use the straight cast - the as won't work.
In the special case of converting to a string, every object has a ToString, so your third method may be okay if o isn't null and you think the ToString method might do what you want.

'as' is based on 'is', which is a keyword that checks at runtime if the object is polimorphycally compatible (basically if a cast can be made) and returns null if the check fails.
These two are equivalent:
Using 'as':
string s = o as string;
Using 'is':
if(o is string)
s = o;
else
s = null;
On the contrary, the c-style cast is made also at runtime, but throws an exception if the cast cannot be made.
Just to add an important fact:
The 'as' keyword only works with reference types. You cannot do:
// I swear i is an int
int number = i as int;
In those cases you have to use casting.

If you already know what type it can cast to, use a C-style cast:
var o = (string) iKnowThisIsAString;
Note that only with a C-style cast can you perform explicit type coercion.
If you don't know whether it's the desired type and you're going to use it if it is, use as keyword:
var s = o as string;
if (s != null) return s.Replace("_","-");
//or for early return:
if (s==null) return;
Note that as will not call any type conversion operators. It will only be non-null if the object is not null and natively of the specified type.
Use ToString() to get a human-readable string representation of any object, even if it can't cast to string.

The as keyword is good in asp.net when you use the FindControl method.
Hyperlink link = this.FindControl("linkid") as Hyperlink;
if (link != null)
{
...
}
This means you can operate on the typed variable rather then having to then cast it from object like you would with a direct cast:
object linkObj = this.FindControl("linkid");
if (link != null)
{
Hyperlink link = (Hyperlink)linkObj;
}
It's not a huge thing, but it saves lines of code and variable assignment, plus it's more readable

According to experiments run on this page: http://www.dotnetguru2.org/sebastienros/index.php/2006/02/24/cast_vs_as
(this page is having some "illegal referrer" errors show up sometimes, so just refresh if it does)
Conclusion is, the "as" operator is normally faster than a cast. Sometimes by many times faster, sometimes just barely faster.
I peronsonally thing "as" is also more readable.
So, since it is both faster and "safer" (wont throw exception), and possibly easier to read, I recommend using "as" all the time.

2 is useful for casting to a derived type.
Suppose a is an Animal:
b = a as Badger;
c = a as Cow;
if (b != null)
b.EatSnails();
else if (c != null)
c.EatGrass();
will get a fed with a minimum of casts.

"(string)o" will result in an InvalidCastException as there's no direct cast.
"o as string" will result in s being a null reference, rather than an exception being thrown.
"o.ToString()" isn't a cast of any sort per-se, it's a method that's implemented by object, and thus in one way or another, by every class in .net that "does something" with the instance of the class it's called on and returns a string.
Don't forget that for converting to string, there's also Convert.ToString(someType instanceOfThatType) where someType is one of a set of types, essentially the frameworks base types.

It seems the two of them are conceptually different.
Direct Casting
Types don't have to be strictly related. It comes in all types of flavors.
Custom implicit/explicit casting: Usually a new object is created.
Value Type Implicit: Copy without losing information.
Value Type Explicit: Copy and information might be lost.
IS-A relationship: Change reference type, otherwise throws exception.
Same type: 'Casting is redundant'.
It feels like the object is going to be converted into something else.
AS operator
Types have a direct relationship. As in:
Reference Types: IS-A relationship Objects are always the same, just the reference changes.
Value Types: Copy boxing and nullable types.
It feels like the you are going to handle the object in a different way.
Samples and IL
class TypeA
{
public int value;
}
class TypeB
{
public int number;
public static explicit operator TypeB(TypeA v)
{
return new TypeB() { number = v.value };
}
}
class TypeC : TypeB { }
interface IFoo { }
class TypeD : TypeA, IFoo { }
void Run()
{
TypeA customTypeA = new TypeD() { value = 10 };
long longValue = long.MaxValue;
int intValue = int.MaxValue;
// Casting
TypeB typeB = (TypeB)customTypeA; // custom explicit casting -- IL: call class ConsoleApp1.Program/TypeB ConsoleApp1.Program/TypeB::op_Explicit(class ConsoleApp1.Program/TypeA)
IFoo foo = (IFoo)customTypeA; // is-a reference -- IL: castclass ConsoleApp1.Program/IFoo
int loseValue = (int)longValue; // explicit -- IL: conv.i4
long dontLose = intValue; // implict -- IL: conv.i8
// AS
int? wraps = intValue as int?; // nullable wrapper -- IL: call instance void valuetype [System.Runtime]System.Nullable`1<int32>::.ctor(!0)
object o1 = intValue as object; // box -- IL: box [System.Runtime]System.Int32
TypeD d1 = customTypeA as TypeD; // reference conversion -- IL: isinst ConsoleApp1.Program/TypeD
IFoo f1 = customTypeA as IFoo; // reference conversion -- IL: isinst ConsoleApp1.Program/IFoo
//TypeC d = customTypeA as TypeC; // wouldn't compile
}

All given answers are good, if i might add something:
To directly use string's methods and properties (e.g. ToLower) you can't write:
(string)o.ToLower(); // won't compile
you can only write:
((string)o).ToLower();
but you could write instead:
(o as string).ToLower();
The as option is more readable (at least to my opinion).

string s = o as string; // 2
Is prefered, as it avoids the performance penalty of double casting.

I would like to attract attention to the following specifics of the as operator:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/language-reference/keywords/as
Note that the as operator performs only reference conversions,
nullable conversions, and boxing conversions. The as operator can't
perform other conversions, such as user-defined conversions, which
should instead be performed by using cast expressions.

Use direct cast string s = (string) o; if in the logical context of your app string is the only valid type. With this approach, you will get InvalidCastException and implement the principle of Fail-fast. Your logic will be protected from passing the invalid type further or get NullReferenceException if used as operator.
If the logic expects several different types cast string s = o as string; and check it on null or use is operator.
New cool feature have appeared in C# 7.0 to simplify cast and check is a Pattern matching:
if(o is string s)
{
// Use string variable s
}
or
switch (o)
{
case int i:
// Use int variable i
break;
case string s:
// Use string variable s
break;
}

When trying to get the string representation of anything (of any type) that could potentially be null, I prefer the below line of code. It's compact, it invokes ToString(), and it correctly handles nulls. If o is null, s will contain String.Empty.
String s = String.Concat(o);

Since nobody mentioned it, the closest to instanceOf to Java by keyword is this:
obj.GetType().IsInstanceOfType(otherObj)

Difference between Casting, Parsing and Converting [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Is casting the same thing as converting?
(11 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
I have been working on some code for a while. And I had a question: What's the difference among casting, parsing and converting? And when we can use them?

Casting is when you take a variable of one type and change it to a different type. You can only do that in some cases, like so:
string str = "Hello";
object o = str;
string str2 = (string)o; // <-- This is casting
Casting does not change the variable's value - the value remains of the same type (the string "Hello").
Converting is when you take a value from one type and convert it to a different type:
double d = 5.5;
int i = (int)d; // <---- d was converted to an integer
Note that in this case, the conversion was done in the form of casting.
Parsing is taking a string and converting it to a different type by understanding its content. For instance, converting the string "123" to the number 123, or the string "Saturday, September 22nd" to a DateTime.

Casting: Telling the compiler that an object is really something else without changing it (though some data loss may be incurred).
object obj_s= "12345";
string str_i = (string) obj; // "12345" as string, explicit
int small = 12345;
long big = 0;
big = small; // 12345 as long, implicit
Parsing: Telling the program to interpret (on runtime) a string.
string int_s = "12345";
int i = int.Parse(int_s); // 12345 as int
Converting: Telling the program to use built in methods to try to change type for what may be not simply interchangeable.
double dub = 123.45;
int i = System.Convert.ToInt32(dub); // 123 as int

These are three terms each with specific uses:
casting - changing one type to another. In order to do this, the
types must be compatible: int -> object; IList<T> -> IEnumerable<T>
parsing - typically refers to reading strings and extracting useful parts
converting - similar to casting, but typically a conversion would involve changing one type to an otherwise non-compatible type. An example of that would be converting objects to strings.
A cast from one type to another requires some form of compatibility, usually via inheritance or implementation of an interface. Casting can be implicit or explicit:
class Foo : IFoo {
// implementations
}
// implicit cast
public IFoo GetFoo() {
return Foo;
}
// explicit cast
public IFoo GetFoo() {
return Foo as IFoo;
}
There are quite a few ways to parse. We read about XML parsing; some types have Parse and TryParse methods; and then there are times we need to parse strings or other types to extract the 'stuff we care about'.
int.Parse("3") // returns an integer value of 3
int.TryParse("foo", out intVal) // return true if the string could be parsed; otherwise false
Converting may entail changing one type into another incompatible one. This could involve some parsing as well. Conversion examples would usually be, IMO, very much tied to specific contexts.

casting
(casting to work the types need to be compatible)
Converting between data types can be done explicitly using a cast
static void _Casting()
{
int i = 10;
float f = 0;
f = i; // An implicit conversion, no data will be lost.
f = 0.5F;
i = (int)f; // An explicit conversion. Information will be lost.
}
parsing (Parsing is conversion between different types:)
converts one type to another type can be called as parsing uisng int.parse
int num = int.Parse("500");
traversing through data items like XML can be also called as parsing
When user-defined conversions get involved, this usually entails returning a different object/value. user-defined conversions usually exist between value types rather than reference types, so this is rarely an issue.
converting
Using the Convert-class actually just helps you parse it
for more please refer http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms228360%28VS.80%29.aspx

This question is actually pretty complicated...
Normally, a cast just tells the runtime to change one type to another. These have to be types that are compatible. For example an int can always be represented as a long so it is OK to cast it to a long. Some casts have side-effects. For example, a float will drop its precision if it is cast to an int. So (int)1.5f will result in int value 1. Casts are usually the fastest way to change the type, because it is a single IL operator. For example, the code:
public void CastExample()
{
int i = 7;
long l = (long)i;
}
Performs the cast by running the IL code:
conv.i8 //convert to 8-byte integer (a.k.a. Int64, a.k.a. long).
A parse is some function that takes in once type and returns another. It is an actual code function, not just an IL operator. This usually takes longer to run, because it runs multiple lines of code.
For example, this code:
public void ParseExample()
{
string s = "7";
long l = long.Parse(s);
}
Runs the IL code:
call int64 [mscorlib]System.Int64::Parse(string)
In other words it calls an actual method. Internally, the Int64 type provides that method:
public static long Parse(String s) {
return Number.ParseInt64(s, NumberStyles.Integer, NumberFormatInfo.CurrentInfo);
}
And Number.Parse:
[System.Security.SecuritySafeCritical] // auto-generated
internal unsafe static Int64 ParseInt64(String value, NumberStyles options, NumberFormatInfo numfmt) {
Byte * numberBufferBytes = stackalloc Byte[NumberBuffer.NumberBufferBytes];
NumberBuffer number = new NumberBuffer(numberBufferBytes);
Int64 i = 0;
StringToNumber(value, options, ref number, numfmt, false);
if ((options & NumberStyles.AllowHexSpecifier) != 0) {
if (!HexNumberToInt64(ref number, ref i)) {
throw new OverflowException(Environment.GetResourceString("Overflow_Int64"));
}
}
else {
if (!NumberToInt64(ref number, ref i)) {
throw new OverflowException(Environment.GetResourceString("Overflow_Int64"));
}
}
return i;
}
And so on... so you can see it is actually doing a lot of code.
Now where things get more complicated is that although a cast is usually the fastest, classes can override the implicit and explicit cast operators. For example, if I write the class:
public class CastableClass
{
public int IntValue { get; set; }
public static explicit operator int(CastableClass castable)
{
return castable.IntValue;
}
}
I have overridden the explicit cast operator for int, so I can now do:
public void OverridedCastExample()
{
CastableClass cc = new CastableClass {IntValue = 7};
int i = (int)cc;
}
Which looks like a normal cast, but in actuality it calls my method that I defined on my class. The IL code is:
call int32 UnitTestProject1.CastableClass::op_Explicit(class UnitTestProject1.CastableClass)
So anyway, you typically want to cast whenever you can. Then parse if you can't.

Casting: or Parsing
A cast explicitly invokes the conversion operator from one type to another.
Casting variables is not simple. A complicated set of rules resolves casts. In some cases data is lost and the cast cannot be reversed. In others an exception is provoked in the execution engine.
int.Parse is a simplest method but it throws exceptions on invalid input.
TryParse
int.TryParse is one of the most useful methods for parsing integers in the C# language. This method works the same way as int.Parse.
int.TryParse has try and catch structure inside. So, it does not throw exceptions
Convert:
Converts a base data type to another base data type.
Convert.ToInt32, along with its siblings Convert.ToInt16 and Convert.ToInt64, is actually a static wrapper method for the int.Parse method.
Using TryParse instead of Convert or Cast is recommended by many programmers.
source:www.dotnetperls.com

Different people use it to mean different things. It need not be true outside .net world, but here is what I have understood in .net context reading Eric Lippert's blogs:
All transformations of types from one form to another can be called conversion. One way of categorizing may be
implicit -
a. representation changing (also called coercion)
int i = 0;
double d = i;
object o = i; // (specifically called boxing conversion)
IConvertible o = i; // (specifically called boxing conversion)
Requires implicit conversion operator, conversion always succeeds (implicit conversion operator should never throw), changes the referential identity of the object being converted.
b. representation preserving (also called implicit reference conversion)
string s = "";
object o = s;
IList<string> l = new List<string>();
Only valid for reference types, never changes the referential identity of the object being converted, conversion always succeeds, guaranteed at compile time, no runtime checks.
explicit (also called casting) -
a. representation changing
int i = 0;
enum e = (enum)i;
object o = i;
i = (int)o; // (specifically called unboxing conversion)
Requires explicit conversion operator, changes the referential identity of the object being converted, conversion may or may not succeed, does runtime check for compatibility.
b. representation preserving (also called explicit reference conversion)
object o = "";
string s = (string)o;
Only valid for reference types, never changes the referential identity of the object being converted, conversion may or may not succeed, does runtime check for compatibility.
While conversions are language level constructs, Parse is a vastly different thing in the sense it's framework level, or in other words they are custom methods written to get an output from an input, like int.Parse which takes in a string and returns an int.

"bool" as object vs "string" as object testing equality

I am relatively new to C#, and I noticed something interesting today that I guess I have never noticed or perhaps I am missing something. Here is an NUnit test to give an example:
object boolean1 = false;
object booloan2 = false;
Assert.That(boolean1 == booloan2);
This unit test fails, but this one passes:
object string1 = "string";
object string2 = "string";
Assert.That(string1 == string2);
I'm not that surprised in and of itself that the first one fails seeing as boolean1, and boolean2 are different references. But it is troubling to me that the first one fails, and the second one passes. I read (on MSDN somewhere) that some magic was done to the String class to facilitate this. I think my question really is why wasn't this behavior replicated in bool? As a note... if the boolean1 and 2 are declared as bool then there is no problem.
What is the reason for these differences or why it was implemented that way? Is there a situation where you would want to reference a bool object for anything except its value?

It's because the strings are in fact referring the same instance. Strings are interned, so that unique strings are reused. This means that in your code, the two string variables will refer to the same, interned string instance.
You can read some more about it here: Strings in .NET and C# (by Jon Skeet)
Update
Just for completeness; as Anthony points out string literals are interned, which can be showed with the following code:
object firstString = "string1";
object secondString = "string1";
Console.WriteLine(firstString == secondString); // prints True
int n = 1;
object firstString = "string" + n.ToString();
object secondString = "string" + n.ToString();
Console.WriteLine(firstString == secondString); // prints False

Operator Overloading.
The Boolean class does not have an overloaded == operator. The String class does.

As Fredrik said, you are doing a reference compare with the boolean comparison. The reason the string scenario works is because the == operator has been overloaded for strings to do a value compare. See the System.String page on MSDN.

Typecasting in C#

What is type casting, what's the use of it? How does it work?

Casting is usually a matter of telling the compiler that although it only knows that a value is of some general type, you know it's actually of a more specific type. For example:
object x = "hello";
...
// I know that x really refers to a string
string y = (string) x;
There are various conversion operators. The (typename) expression form can do three different things:
An unboxing conversion (e.g. from a boxed integer to int)
A user-defined conversion (e.g. casting XAttribute to string)
A reference conversion within a type hierarchy (e.g. casting object to string)
All of these may fail at execution time, in which case an exception will be thrown.
The as operator, on the other hand, never throws an exception - instead, the result of the conversion is null if it fails:
object x = new object();
string y = x as string; // Now y is null because x isn't a string
It can be used for unboxing to a nullable value type:
object x = 10; // Boxed int
float? y = x as float?; // Now y has a null value because x isn't a boxed float
There are also implicit conversions, e.g. from int to long:
int x = 10;
long y = x; // Implicit conversion
Does that cover everything you were interested in?

Casting means creating a reference to an object that is of a different type to the reference you're currently holding. You can do upcasting or downcasting and each has different benefits.
Upcasting:
string greeting = "Hi Bob";
object o = greeting;
This creates a more general reference (object) from the more specific reference (string). Maybe you've written code that can handle any object, like this:
Console.WriteLine("Type of o is " + o.GetType());
That code doesn't need to be changed no matter what objects you set o to.
Downcasting:
object o = "Hi Bob";
string greeting = (string)o;
Here you want a more specific reference. You might know that the object is a string (you can test this e.g.:
if (o is string)
{ do something }
Now you can treat the reference as a string instead of an object. E.g. a string has a length (but an object doesn't), so you can say:
Console.WriteLine("Length of string is " + greeting.length);
Which you can't do with an object.

See this or this:
Because C# is statically-typed at compile time, after a variable is declared, it cannot be declared again or used to store values of another type unless that type is convertible to the variable's type
...
However, you might sometimes need to copy a value into a variable or method parameter of another type. For example, you might have an integer variable that you need to pass to a method whose parameter is typed as double. Or you might need to assign a class variable to a variable of an interface type. These kinds of operations are called type conversions. In C#, you can perform the following kinds of conversions

Casting from one data type to another.
For a general reading see this.
See also msdn

Also, if you're explicitly casting, you can take advantage of pattern matching. If you have an object:
object aObject = "My string value";
You can safely cast the object as a string in a single line:
if (aObject is string aString)
{
Console.WriteLine("aString = " + aString)
// Output: "aString = My string value"
}
Using this, along with an inverted if statement, you can safely cast types, and fail out early if need be:
public void Conversion(object objA, object objB)
{
// Fail out early if the objects provided are not the correct type, or are null
if (!(objA is string str) || !(objB is int num)) { return; }
// Now, you have `str` and `num` that are safely cast, non-null variables
// all while maintaining the same scope as your Conversion method
Console.WriteLine("str.Length is " + str.Length);
Console.WriteLine("num is " + num);
}

Difference between .ToString and "as string" in C#

What is the difference between using the two following statements? It appears to me that the first "as string" is a type cast, while the second ToString is an actual call to a method that converts the input to a string? Just looking for some insight if any.
Page.Theme = Session["SessionTheme"] as string;
Page.Theme = Session["SessionTheme"].ToString();

If Session["SessionTheme"] is not a string, as string will return null.
.ToString() will try to convert any other type to string by calling the object's ToString() method. For most built-in types this will return the object converted to a string, but for custom types without a specific .ToString() method, it will return the name of the type of the object.
object o1 = "somestring";
object o2 = 1;
object o3 = new object();
object o4 = null;
string s = o1 as string; // returns "somestring"
string s = o1.ToString(); // returns "somestring"
string s = o2 as string; // returns null
string s = o2.ToString(); // returns "1"
string s = o3 as string; // returns null
string s = o3.ToString(); // returns "System.Object"
string s = o4 as string; // returns null
string s = o4.ToString(); // throws NullReferenceException
Another important thing to keep in mind is that if the object is null, calling .ToString() will throw an exception, but as string will simply return null.

The as keyword will basically check whether the object is an instance of the type, using MSIL opcode isinst under the hood. If it is, it returns the reference to the object, else a null reference.
It does not, as many say, attempt to perform a cast as such - which implies some kind of exception handling. Not so.
ToString(), simply calls the object's ToString() method, either a custom one implemented by the class (which for most in-built types performs a conversion to string) - or if none provided, the base class object's one, returning type info.

I'm extending Philippe Leybaert's accepted answer a bit because while I have found resources comparing three of these, I've never found an explanation that compares all four.
(string)obj
obj as string
obj.ToString()
Convert.ToString(obj)
object o1 = "somestring";
object o2 = 1;
object o3 = new object();
object o4 = null;
Console.WriteLine((string)o1); // returns "somestring"
Console.WriteLine(o1 as string); // returns "somestring"
Console.WriteLine(o1.ToString()); // returns "somestring"
Console.WriteLine(Convert.ToString(o1)); // returns "somestring"
Console.WriteLine((string)o2); // throws System.InvalidCastException
Console.WriteLine(o2 as string); // returns null
Console.WriteLine(o2.ToString()); // returns "1"
Console.WriteLine(Convert.ToString(o2)); // returns "1"
Console.WriteLine((string)o3); // throws System.InvalidCastException
Console.WriteLine(o3 as string); // returns null
Console.WriteLine(o3.ToString()); // returns "System.Object"
Console.WriteLine(Convert.ToString(o3)); // returns "System.Object"
Console.WriteLine((string)o4); // returns null
Console.WriteLine(o4 as string); // returns null
Console.WriteLine(o4.ToString()); // throws System.NullReferenceException
Console.WriteLine(Convert.ToString(o4)); // returns string.Empty
From these results we can see that (string)obj and obj as string behave the same way as each other when obj is a string or null; otherwise (string)obj will throw an invalid cast exception and obj as string will just return null. obj.ToString()
and Convert.ToString(obj) also behave the same way as each other except when obj is null, in which case obj.ToString() will throw a null reference exception and Convert.ToString(obj) will return an empty string.
So here are my recommendations:
(string)obj works best if you want to throw exceptions for types that can't be assigned to a string variable (which includes null)
obj as string works best if you don't want to throw any exceptions and also don't want string representations of non-strings
obj.ToString() works best if you want to throw exceptions for null
Convert.ToString(obj) works best if you don't want to throw any exceptions and want string representations of non-strings
EDIT: I've discovered that Convert.ToString() actually treats null differently depending on the overload, so it actually matters that the variable was declared as an object in this example. If you call Convert.ToString() on a string variable that's null then it will return null instead of string.Empty.

Page.Theme = Session["SessionTheme"] as string;
tries to cast to a string
whereas
Page.Theme = Session["SessionTheme"].ToString();
calls the ToString() method, which can be anything really. This method doesn't cast, it should return a string representation of this object.

To confuse the matter further, C# 6.0 has introduced the null-conditional operator. So now this can also be written as:
Page.Theme = Session["SessionTheme"]?.ToString();
Which will return either null or the result from ToString() without throwing an exception.

First of all "any-object as string" and "any-object.ToString()" are completely different things in terms of their respective context.
string str = any-object as string;
1) This will cast any-object as string type and if any-object is not castable to string then this statement will return null without throwing any exception.
2) This is a compiler-service.
3) This works pretty much well for any other type other than string, ex: you can do it as any-object as Employee, where Employee is a class defined in your library.
string str = any-object.ToString();
1) This will call ToString() of any-object from type-defination. Since System.Object defines ToString() method any class in .Net framework has ToString() method available for over-riding. The programmer will over-ride the ToString() in any-object class or struct defination and will write the code that return suitable string representation of any-object according to responsibility and role played by any-object.
2) Like you can define a class Employee and over-ride ToString() method which may return Employee object's string representation as "FIRSTNAME - LASTNAME, EMP-CDOE" .
Note that the programmer has control over ToString() in this case and it has got nothing to do with casting or type-conversion.

The as string check is the object is a string. If it isn't a null it returned.
The call to ToString() will indeed call the ToString() method on the object.

The first one returns the class as a string if the class is a string or derived from a string (returns null if unsuccessful).
The second invokes the ToString() method on the class.

Actually the best way of writing the code above is to do the following:
if (Session["SessionTheme"] != null)
{
Page.Theme = Session["SessionTheme"].ToString();
}
That way you're almost certain that it won't cast a NullReferenceException.