What happens if I don't call Dispose on the pen object?

Question

What happens if I don't call Dispose on the pen object in this code snippet?

private void panel_Paint(object sender, PaintEventArgs e)
{
    var pen = Pen(Color.White, 1);
    //Do some drawing
}

Answer 1

A couple of corrections should be made here:

Regarding the answer from Phil Devaney:

"...Calling Dispose allows you to do deterministic cleanup and is highly recommended."

Actually, calling Dispose() does not deterministically cause a GC collection in .NET - i.e. it does NOT trigger a GC immediately just because you called Dispose(). It only indirectly signals to the GC that the object can be cleaned up during the next GC (for the Generation that the object lives in). In other words, if the object lives in Gen 1 then it wouldn't be disposed of until a Gen 1 collection takes place. One of the only ways (though not the only) that you can programmatically and deterministically cause the GC to perform a collection is by calling GC.Collect(). However, doing so is not recommended since the GC "tunes" itself during runtime by collecting metrics about your memory allocations during runtime for your app. Calling GC.Collect() dumps those metrics and causes the GC to start its "tuning" all over again.

Regarding the answer:

IDisposable is for disposing unmanaged resources. This is the pattern in .NET.

This is incomplete. As the GC is non-deterministic, the Dispose Pattern, (How to properly implement the Dispose pattern), is available so that you can release the resources you are using - managed or unmanaged. It has nothing to do with what kind of resources you are releasing. The need for implementing a Finalizer does have to do with what kind of resources you are using - i.e. ONLY implement one if you have non-finalizable (i.e. native) resources. Maybe you are confusing the two. BTW, you should avoid implementing a Finalizer by using the SafeHandle class instead which wraps native resources which are marshaled via P/Invoke or COM Interop. If you do end up implementing a Finalizer, you should always implement the Dispose Pattern.

One critical note which I haven't seen anyone mention yet is that if disposable object is created and it has a Finalizer (and you never really know whether they do - and you certainly shouldn't make any assumptions about that), then it will get sent directly to the Finalization Queue and live for at least 1 extra GC collection.

If GC.SuppressFinalize() is not ultimately called, then the finalizer for the object will be called on the next GC. Note that a proper implementation of the Dispose pattern should call GC.SuppressFinalize(). Thus, if you call Dispose() on the object, and it has implemented the pattern properly, you will avoid execution of the Finalizer. If you don't call Dispose() on an object which has a finalizer, the object will have its Finalizer executed by the GC on the next collection. Why is this bad? The Finalizer thread in the CLR up to and including .NET 4.6 is single-threaded. Imagine what happens if you increase the burden on this thread - your app performance goes to you know where.

Calling Dispose on an object provides for the following:

1. reduce strain on the GC for the process;
2. reduce the app's memory pressure;
3. reduce the chance of an OutOfMemoryException (OOM) if the LOH (Large Object Heap) gets fragmented and the object is on the LOH;
4. Keep the object out of the Finalizable and f-reachable Queues if it has a Finalizer;
5. Make sure your resources (managed and unmanaged) are cleaned up.

Edit: I just noticed that the "all knowing and always correct" MSDN documentation on IDisposable (extreme sarcasm here) actually does say

The primary use of this interface is to release unmanaged resources

As anyone should know, MSDN is far from correct, never mentions or shows 'best practices', sometimes provides examples that don't compile, etc. It is unfortunate that this is documented in those words. However, I know what they were trying to say: in a perfect world the GC will cleanup all managed resources for you (how idealistic); it will not, however cleanup unmanaged resources. This is absolutely true. That being said, life is not perfect and neither is any application. The GC will only cleanup resources that have no rooted-references. This is mostly where the problem lies.

Among about 15-20 different ways that .NET can "leak" (or not free) memory, the one that would most likely bite you if you don't call Dispose() is the failure to unregister/unhook/unwire/detach event handlers/delegates. If you create an object that has delegates wired to it and you don't call Dispose() (and don't detach the delegates yourself) on it, the GC will still see the object as having rooted references - i.e. the delegates. Thus, the GC will never collect it.

@joren's comment/question below (my reply is too long for a comment):

I have a blog post about the Dispose pattern I recommend to use - (How to properly implement the Dispose pattern). There are times when you should null out references and it never hurts to do so. Actually, doing so does do something before GC runs - it removes the rooted reference to that object. The GC later scans its collection of rooted references and collects those that do not have a rooted reference. Think of this example when it is good to do so: you have an instance of type "ClassA" - let's call it 'X'. X contains an object of type "ClassB" - let's call this 'Y'. Y implements IDisposable, thus, X should do the same to dispose of Y. Let's assume that X is in Generation 2 or the LOH and Y is in Generation 0 or 1. When Dispose() is called on X and that implementation nulls out the reference to Y, the rooted reference to Y is immediately removed. If a GC happens for Gen 0 or Gen 1, the memory/resources for Y is cleaned up but the memory/resources for X is not since X lives in Gen 2 or the LOH.