@PedroCosta I think it is the same reason as why you're not allowed to explicitly override Equals(object). One needs to be very careful when implementing these Equals methods to ensure that they all do the same thing. Only allowing programmers to override the strongly-typed Equals makes it harder to make mistakes. — Sweeper 9 secs ago

I don't really understand your comment but... this site has very clear guidelines. Opinion/discussion-based questions are off-topic. Link-only answers are not valid answers. Product promotion can be flagged as spam and shouldn't be the basis of an answer. There are plenty of sites to have open-ended discussions. There are even Stack Exchange sites such as Software Recommendations where people can ask for software recommendations. In this case, the OP isn't even asking for that - they are asking for the "best way" which is clearly off-topic. — David Makogon 42 secs ago

@pbhuter the point Avi is making is sizeof is used to get the size of the object you invoke it on. In this case that object is a pointer, so you'll get the size of the pointer, typically 4 or 8 bytes, and not the size of whatever the pointer points at. There is no general way to get the size of what's pointed at because pointers are dumb. They know where you could find an object (nothing but careful programmers writing good code ensures a pointer points at a valid object), but if that object is an array, a pointer has no mechanism for determining how many items are in the array. — user4581301 36 secs ago

Software Recommendations may be able to help you. — user4581301 20 secs ago