== Why is this an issue?

When a ``++static++`` constructor serves no other purpose that initializing ``++static++`` fields, it comes with an unnecessary performance cost because the compiler generates a check before each ``++static++`` method or instance constructor invocation.


Instead, inline initialization is highly recommended.


=== Noncompliant code example

[source,csharp]
----
namespace myLib
{
  public class Foo
  {
    static int i;
    static string s;

    static Foo() // Noncompliant
    {
      i = 3;
      ResourceManager sm =  new ResourceManager("strings", Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly());
      s = sm.GetString("mystring");
    }
  }
}
----


=== Compliant solution

[source,csharp]
----
namespace myLib
{
  public class Foo
  {
    static int i =3;
    static string s = InitString();

    static string InitString()
    {
      ResourceManager sm = new ResourceManager("strings", Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly());
      return sm.GetString("mystring");
    }
  }
}
----


ifdef::env-github,rspecator-view[]

'''
== Implementation Specification
(visible only on this page)

=== Message

Initialize all "static" data inline and remove the "static" constructor


=== Highlighting

Primary: Static constructor signature

Secondary: Uninitialized static fields


endif::env-github,rspecator-view[]