Given a C# string which is a set of hexadecimal numbers such as:

string HexString = "202048656c6c6f20576f726c64313233212020";

Where those hexadecimal numbers represent the ASCII text:

"  Hello World123!  "

I need to convert the HexString to a String and I have the following code which works, but looks so excessive!

string HexStringToString(string HexString) {
    string stringValue = "";
    for (int i = 0; i < HexString.Length / 2; i++) {
        string hexChar = HexString.Substring(i * 2, 2);
        int hexValue = Convert.ToInt32(hexChar, 16);
        stringValue += Char.ConvertFromUtf32(hexValue);
    return stringValue;

Am I missing some elegant method?

  • \$\begingroup\$ This method should be static as it appears that it doesn't access any class instance data. Further, it looks like an excellent candidate to be an extension method (simply change the parameter to read this string HexString after making the method static). \$\endgroup\$ – Jesse C. Slicer Jul 24 '15 at 15:49
  • \$\begingroup\$ just because a method doesnt access any class instance data it has to be static, what if it was written in a big project and later you want to add more functionality/flexibility? How would you inherit from the class and override it? \$\endgroup\$ – bubakazouba Jul 25 '15 at 1:25
  • \$\begingroup\$ Is there any way you can get those values separated by some kind of separating character like a space? If so then you can use split for some magic. Otherwise the performance will suffer if you want to use a linq-esque solution. \$\endgroup\$ – moarboilerplate Jul 27 '15 at 20:40

The method does two different things and thus should be split in two:

  1. Interpret a hex string as a sequence of bytes. You can find many possible implementations at How do you convert Byte Array to Hexadecimal String, and vice versa?.

    Yours has quadratic runtime (due to the string concatenation pattern RobH noted) and creates a new string object for each byte.

    Keeping it similar to yours, but reducing it to linear runtime:

    public static byte[] HexStringToBytes(string hexString)
        if(hexString == null)
            throw new ArgumentNullException("hexString");
        if(hexString.Length % 2 != 0)
            throw new ArgumentException("hexString must have an even length", "hexString");
        var bytes = new byte[hexString.Length / 2];
        for (int i = 0; i < bytes.Length; i++)
            string currentHex = hexString.Substring(i * 2, 2);
            bytes[i] = Convert.ToByte(currentHex, 16);
        return bytes;

    This code is still relatively slow, creating a new substring for each byte and using Convert.ToByte, but I'd only complicate that after benchmarking revealed this as relevant cost.

  2. Interpret the sequence of bytes as an ISO-8859-1 encoded string. This is equivalent to your code, since the first 256 code-points in Unicode match the ISO-8859-1 single-byte encoding.

    I'd use:


    You should consider using UTF-8 instead, so you can support any Unicode code-point and not just those common in western Europe.

  • \$\begingroup\$ I think this answer is better than mine - I certainly think you're right about splitting it into two methods. Good point about being explicit about the encoding as well. \$\endgroup\$ – RobH Jul 24 '15 at 18:21
  • \$\begingroup\$ ANSI Windows-1252 encoding is favored over ISO-8859-1. \$\endgroup\$ – dfhwze Jun 5 '19 at 5:24

I don't think there is a built-in method. Yours is pretty good but we could make some improvements:

  • Parameters should be camelCase => hexString.
  • You should favour StringBuilder when building up strings.
  • You should step through the string in increments of 2 to cut down on the maths.
  • You should validate the argument.
  • You should prefer var when the type is obvious.

Result of those points:

string HexStringToString(string hexString) 
    if (hexString == null || (hexString.Length & 1) == 1) 
        throw new ArgumentException();
    var sb = new StringBuilder();
    for (var i = 0; i < hexString.Length; i += 2) {
        var hexChar = hexString.Substring(i, 2);
        sb.Append((char)Convert.ToByte(hexChar, 16));
    return sb.ToString();
  • \$\begingroup\$ I really appreciate your improvements. My code is typically just reviewed by me, so I don't get much good advice! I will have to start using StringBuilder as it really is not in my repertoire (I have a C/assy background). As far as the math of i+2 vs i*2, I would "assume" the compiler sees *2 as a shift and no real multiplication. (I totally misunderstand var.) In this case the hexString is known to consist of pairs of hex digits on entry; however, to make it reusable, definitely validate. As to camelCase, I have to admit my functions, properties, methods and parameters are ALLOverthePlace! \$\endgroup\$ – frog_jr Jul 24 '15 at 19:45
  • \$\begingroup\$ @frog_jr - I simplified the maths to make it easier to read. I don't generally worry about perf unless I see a problem when profiling. \$\endgroup\$ – RobH Jul 26 '15 at 11:34
  • \$\begingroup\$ This solution is ok for ASCII, but is bad for UTF8 encoded HEX \$\endgroup\$ – nemke Dec 2 '15 at 13:38
  • \$\begingroup\$ To elaborate, If you try to convert Hex string 3C 6E 61 6D 65 3E D0 9D D0 B5 D0 BC D0 B0 D1 9A D0 B0 3C 2F 6E 61 6D 65 3E wich represent my Cyrillic name within tag name <name>Немања</name> you will get garbage like<name>ÐемаÑа</name>instead, and that's all because you are grouping characters by 2. \$\endgroup\$ – nemke Dec 2 '15 at 14:13
  • \$\begingroup\$ @nemke - I realized what you meant so I deleted my comment. The OP specifically mentions ASCII but you are of course correct that it doesn't scale to other character encodings. \$\endgroup\$ – RobH Dec 2 '15 at 14:17

I'm going to depart from the other answers and focus on this bit:

Am I missing some elegant method?

Do you consider Regex to be elegant? You could reduce the amount of code required at the cost of performance. Take the following Regex expression:


Broken down:

(?<=            # Look-behind that won't actually be captured
    \G          # Zero-width assertion
      ..        # Match exactly two characters
        )(?!$)  # Do not match an empty group at the end of the string

Then it's just a matter of transforming the string array into a collection of characters and joining them all back together. Using Linq's Select and the string.Join method, this can be done quickly.

A short implementation may look like:

string HexStringToString(string hexString)
    string[] hexValues = Regex.Split(hexString, "(?<=\\G..)(?!$)");
    var characters = hexValues.Select(hex => (char)Convert.ToByte(hex, 16));
    return string.Join(string.Empty, characters);

Elegant? Sure. You could even do it all on a single line:

string HexStringToString(string hexString)
    return string.Join("", Regex.Split(hexString, "(?<=\\G..)(?!$)").Select(x => (char)Convert.ToByte(x, 16)));

But elegance is never more valuable than readability and maintainability.

As @CodesInChaos said, your method is doing multiple things and should be split apart. I would even break out the functionality of separating a string into its own method, perhaps as an extension method off of the String class.


If you are looking for elegant you can consider the functional paradigm. Here I have added a function SelectPair which maps 2 elements of an IEnumerable to a single element; allowing the 2 characters of the hex string to be extracted together.

The main code then reduces to

static string HexStringToString(string hexString) 
                    (ch1,ch2) => ch1.ToString() + ch2)
                    hexChar => (char) Convert.ToByte(hexChar, 16)));

SelectPair is an extension method, which can be reused elsewhere.

public static class LinqExt
    SelectPair<TSource, TResult>(
        IEnumerable<TSource>                list,
        Func<TSource,TSource,TResult>       onPair)
        var odd   = default(TSource);
        var isOdd = true;

        foreach(var item in list)
            if (isOdd)
                odd = item;
                yield return onPair(odd, item);

            isOdd = !isOdd;

I like the original code best. I don't know of a better way than iterating through the string and the original code is actually pretty readable and likely no slower than any of the other options.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.