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)

Is it possible to unbox an object to more than one value type?

I have read in CLR via C#:
Unboxing is really just the operation of obtaining a pointer to the
raw value type (data fields) contained within an object.
which means that if more than one value type is contained within an object they can be unboxed using the below syntax:
int a= (int) o; //assigns a to 10
char b= (char) o; // assigns b to 'b'
How to implement such object which supports multiple unboxing?

A boxed value can only be the boxed form of a single type - if you call o.GetType() you'll find out what that is.
In general, you can only unbox to the exact same type, with a few wrinkles:
You can unbox an enum value to its underlying integral type, and vice versa
There's no such thing as a boxed nullable value type - boxing will result in either a boxed form of the non-nullable type, or a null reference. You can unbox to a nullable value type, and the result will either be a null value (if the original reference was a null reference) or a non-null value containing the unboxed non-nullable value, if you see what I mean.
So for example:
object o = 10;
FileMode mode = (FileMode) o; // Valid conversion to enum
int? n = (int?) o; // n has a value of 10
n = null;
o = n; // o's value is a null reference
n = (int?) o; // n's value is the null int? value

Are you talking about casting? In .NET if you have a boxed type it has a specific type and you can only cast it to the actual value type to unbox:
object o=10; // o is a boxed int with value 10
var a=(int)o; // works
//var b=(byte)o; // ERROR, this is not what's contained in it
var b=(byte)(int)o; // works, you get the int out then cast it to byte
var b=Convert.ToByte(o); // also works, using IConvertible
However, the main purpose of generics (initially at least) was to avoid boxing value types at all because of the performance costs involved. You can change most instances of object to generic values and preserve the types, and when you use them you'll have the proper value type right away.

If you have a custom object with for example both an int or a string, you could do this with explicit conversion operators.
Example;
public class CustomObject
{
int Number;
string Text;
public CustomObject(int number, string text) //constructor
{
Number = number;
Text = text;
}
public static explicit operator int(CustomObject o)
{
return o.Number;
}
public static explicit operator string(CustomObject o)
{
return o.Text;
}
}
Fiddle example

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.

What is the best practice for syntax in casting a variable?

Which (if any) is more correct? Why?
string someVariable = (string) someOtherVariable;
string someVariable = someOtherVariable.ToString();
string someVariable = someOtherVariable as string;
I've used all three, but I don't have any preference or understanding why one is better than the other.

These are not all examples of casting.
This is a cast:
string someVariable = (string) someOtherVariable;
This is method call:
string someVariable = someOtherVariable.ToString();
And this is a safe cast:
string someVariable = someOtherVariable as string;
The first and third examples are actual casts. The first cast has the potential to throw an InvalidCastException whereas the third example will not throw that exception. That is why the as operator is known as a safe cast.

Here's my article on the subject.
http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2009/10/08/what-s-the-difference-between-as-and-cast-operators.aspx
As for which one is "most correct", the one that is most correct is the one that has the meaning you intend to convey to the reader of the program.
"ToString()" conveys "this is probably not a string; if it is not, then I wish to obtain from the object a string which represents it."
The "cast" operator conveys either "this is a string, and I am willing to have my program crash if I am wrong", or the opposite, "this is not a string and I want to call a user-defined conversion on this object to string".
The "as" operator conveys "this might be a string and if it isn't, I want the result to be null."
Which of those four things do you mean?

The three do different things -- none are "more correct", it depends on your situation. If you have a bunch of objects that may not be strings, you'd probably use .ToString() (with a null check, if you expect nulls).
If you only care about the non-null strings, but still expect to be receiving non-strings, use an "as" cast, and then ignore the values that come in as null (they were either originally null, or of a non-string type)
if you expect to receive only strings, it is best to use the (string) cast. This expresses the intent best in the code.
object foo = 5;
string str = (string)foo; // exception
string str = foo as string; // null
string str = foo.ToString(); // "5"
object foo = "bar";
string str = (string)foo; // "bar"
string str = foo as string; // "bar"
string str = foo.ToString(); // "bar"
object foo = null;
string str = (string)foo; // null
string str = foo as string; // null
string str = foo.ToString(); // exception

The as keyword is very useful if you think the conversion will fail during an upcast. For instance, if I want to perform the same operation on similar types in a Control list... let's say unchecking all Checkboxes:
foreach (Control ctrl in Controls)
{
Checkbox box = ctrl as Checkbox;
if (box != null)
box.Checked = false;
}
This way, if my list has something else, like a text box or a label, no exception is thrown (as simply sets the variable = null if it fails), and it's very efficient. There is no exception overhead.

The ideas of CAST and CONVERT should not be confused here. Casting involves viewing an object as if it was another type. Converting involves transforming an object to another type.
If your intention is to CAST to a string, you should use the first or third. (Option depends on what you want to happen in the error condition. See bangoker's answer.)
If your intention is to CONVERT to a string, you should use the second. (Or better, ChaosPandion's modified statement with the trinary operator.) That is because the ToString method's behaviour is defined as converting the object into a string representation.

This is 100% personal preference here, but for me I use the folowing:
string someVariable = (string) someOtherVariable;
When converting to a child or parent type (eg. NetworkStream->Stream)
string someVariable = someOtherVariable.ToString();
When converting to a new type (int -> string)
And I never use the latter (as string) method, mostly because coming from a C/C++ background I prefer the() and it's a bit more concise.

There is a big difference between casting with parenthesis and casting with "as".
Basically, parenthesis will thrown an exception while "as" will return null instead of raising an exception.
More detailed info here

string someVariable = (string) someOtherVariable;
this is your good old normal casting and it will throw an exception if you try to cast something into something it CANNOT be casted (thus some times you need to check if they are castable)
string someVariable = someOtherVariable.ToString();
is not really casting, its executing a method that may come from different places(interfaces) but that ALL objects in C# have, since they inherit from the Object object, which has it. It has a default operation which is giving the name of the type of the object, but you can overload it to print whatever you want your class to print on the ToString method.
string someVariable = someOtherVariable as string;
This is a new c# casting, it will check first if it is castable by using a variable is string first and then doing the casting if it is valid or return null if it is not, so it could be a silent error if you are expecting exceptions, since you should check against null.
Basically
myType as myOtherType
is the same as:
var something = null;
if(myType is myOtherType)
{
something = (myType) myotherType;
}
except that as will check and cast in one step, and not in 2.

First of all, you should avoid casting with AS operator. The article linked explains why.
Second, you can use AS operator ONLY if you expect the value not being of the type you cast too. So you will have to check that manually.
Also the obj.ToString() method call is not a casting, it converts object to a string representation (which in case of a string itself is the same string). This can be ovveridden by any class.
So as a general rule I follow this:
Always use (Type) casting.
Use as operator only if object can be of other type than you cast to.
If using as operator - ALWAYS check the result for NULL.
UseToString only in cases when you need to display information about the object.

If your question about the best practice for syntax in casting a variable, then I prefer to use next one:
var someVariable = someOtherVariable as string ?? string.Empty;
Off course you can use someVariableDefaultValue instead of string.Empty.
In case if you cast not to string but into the some complex type, then I recommend next syntax, sometimes called the Safe Navigation Operator:
var complexVariable = otherComplexVariable as ComplexType;
if (complexVariable?.IsCondition)
{
//your code if cast passed and IsCondition is true
}
else
{
//your code if cast not passed or IsCondition is false
}

cannot convert type 'string' to 'int?' via a reference conversion, boxing conversion, unboxing conversion, wrapping conversion or null type conversion

C# accepts the following:
object o = "hello";
int? i = o as int?;
if (i == null) {
// o was not a boxed int
}
else {
// Can use i.Value to recover the original boxed value
}
But not
String o = "hello";
int? i = o as int?;
if (i == null) {
// o was not a boxed int
}
else {
// Can use i.Value to recover the original boxed value
}
I'm just wondering about the behaviour of the keyword as in C#.
The same as in Java this would fail:
Object test1 = "hello";
Integer test2 = (Integer) test1;
String test3 = "hello";
Integer test4 = (Integer) test3; //compilation error

The compiler knows that a string can never be an int? so it tells you that. That doesn't mean that int? isn't useful. Your attempted use case is far from the normal one. The normal one is "I want to represent an integer and the possibility that the value is missing/unknown". For that, int? works extremely well.
Why would you expect your original code to work? Why would it be helpful?
Note that you can use as with nullable types, for unboxing:
object o = "hello";
int? i = o as int?;
if (i == null)
{
// o was not a boxed int
}
else
{
// Can use i.Value to recover the original boxed value
}
EDIT: Having seen your comment, you don't use as to parse things. You probably want to use int.TryParse:
string text = "123":
int value;
if (int.TryParse(text, out value))
{
Console.WriteLine("Parsed successfully: {0}", value);
}
else
{
Console.WriteLine("Unable to parse text as an integer");
}
If you're sure the string is meant to be an integer (i.e. it's a bug otherwise) then you can just use int.Parse:
int value = int.Parse(text);
That will throw an exception if the parsing fails.
Note also that both of these methods allows you to specify a format provider (usually a culture info) which allows you to express how numbers are expressed in that format (e.g. thousands separators).
EDIT: In answer to your new question, the compiler prevents this because it knows a string can't possibly be a boxed int - the conversion will never ever succeed. When it only knows that the original value is an object, it might succeed.
For instance, suppose I said to you, "Here's a shape: is it a square?" That's a sensible question. It's reasonable to ask it: you can't tell without looking at the shape.
If, however, I said: "Here's a triangle: is it a square?" Then you'd be reasonably entitled to laugh in my face, as a triangle can't possibly be a square - the question doesn't make sense.

int? means a nullable integer type, not an int that could contain any other type of variable.
If you want a variable type that could contain an int or a string, you'd have to use an object, or a string I suppose, and then live a life filled with type casting. I don't know why you would want to do that, though.
int? allows you to store any integer value, or a null value. Which is useful when say the answer to the question "How many orders has this person placed" is legitimately "I don't know" instead of a number of orders, or zero which would be "I know for a fact this person has never placed an order".

I want to add some further information.
An other case, why the cast is invalid and the compiler throws an error on compilation is, that System.String is marked as sealed. So the compiler knows from which types System.String inherites and to which types you can cast the string using the as-operator.
Due to the keyword sealed, the compiler also knows that you cannot inherit from System.String to add functionality or implement some additional interfaces.
The code below is an example and the compiler will throw the following error on compilation
Cannot convert type 'SealedClass' to
'ICastToInterface' via a reference
conversion, boxing conversion,
unboxing conversion, wrapping
conversion, or null type conversion
public class UnsealedClass {
// some code
}
public sealed class SealedClass {
// some code
}
public interface ICastToInterface {
// some code
}
public class Test {
public Test() {
UnsealedClass unsealedClass = new UnsealedClass();
SealedClass sealedClass = new SealedClass();
ICastToInterface unsealedCast = unsealedClass as ICastToInterface; // This works fine
ICastToInterface sealedCast = sealedClass as ICastToInterface; // This won´t compile, cause SealedClass is sealed
}
}

but you can check the value of null and set it to null.
int? blah;
if (blah == null)
{}

int? is a nullable integer, it has nothing to do with casting and the as keyword. "String" is a string type object, which is not convertible to an int (nullable or non-nullable).
The as Keyword is virtually the same as casting using brackets except it will not return an error, it will set the object to null:
int i = 1;
object o = i; //boxing
int j = (int)o; //unboxing
This first example works as the object assigned to o is an int.
Now consider:
string i = "MyString";
object o = MyString;
int j = (int)o //unboxing raises exception
int j = o as int; //raises compilation Error as int is not nullable
int? j = o as int?; /// o == null
I hope that that helps to explain the difference between the two concepts.
Richard