'Static readonly' vs. 'const'

Question

I\'ve read around about const and static readonly fields. We have some classes which contain only constant values. They are used for various things

Answer 1

A const (being determined at compile-time) can be used in cases where a readonly static can't, like in switch statements, or attribute constructors. This is because readonly fields are only resolved at run-time, and some code constructs require compile time assurance. A readonly static can be calculated in a constructor, which is often an essential and useful thing. The difference is functional, as should be their usage in my opinion.

In terms of memory allocation, at least with strings (being a reference type), there seems to be no difference in that both are interned and will reference the one interned instance.

Personally, my default is readonly static, as it makes more semantic and logical sense to me, especially since most values are not needed at compile time. And, by the way, public readonly statics are not unusual or uncommon at all as the marked answer states: for instance, System.String.Empty is one.