Go语言的创造者写道:

Go doesn't provide assertions. They are undeniably convenient, but our experience has been that programmers use them as a crutch to avoid thinking about proper error handling and reporting. Proper error handling means that servers continue operation after non-fatal errors instead of crashing. Proper error reporting means that errors are direct and to the point, saving the programmer from interpreting a large crash trace. Precise errors are particularly important when the programmer seeing the errors is not familiar with the code.

你对此有什么看法?


当前回答

如果您所谈论的断言意味着程序抛出然后存在,那么断言可能非常糟糕。这并不是说它们总是错误的使用,它们是一种很容易被误用的结构。他们也有很多更好的选择。这样的事情很容易被称为邪恶。

例如,第三方模块(或任何模块)几乎不应该退出调用程序。这并没有给调用程序的程序员任何控制程序此时应该承担的风险。在许多情况下,数据是如此重要,即使保存损坏的数据也比丢失数据要好。断言可能会迫使您丢失数据。

断言的一些替代方法:

使用调试器, 控制台/数据库/其他日志 异常 其他类型的错误处理

参考:

http://ftp.gnu.org/old-gnu/Manuals/nana-1.14/html_node/nana_3.html http://www.lenholgate.com/blog/2005/09/assert-is-evil.html Go不提供断言,并且有很好的理由:http://golang.org/doc/faq#assertions http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?DoNotUseAssertions

甚至主张assert的人也认为它们应该只用于开发而不是生产:

http://codebetter.com/gregyoung/2007/12/12/asserts-are-not-evil/ http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/6404/Assert-is-your-friend http://parabellumgames.wordpress.com/using-asserts-for-debugging/

This person says that asserts should be used when the module has potentially corrupted data that persists after an exception is thrown: http://www.advogato.org/article/949.html . This is certainly a reasonable point, however, an external module should never prescribe how important corrupted data is to the calling program (by exiting "for" them). The proper way to handle this is by throwing an exception that makes it clear that the program may now be in an inconsistent state. And since good programs mostly consist of modules (with a little glue code in the main executable), asserts are almost always the wrong thing to do.

其他回答

如果您所谈论的断言意味着程序抛出然后存在,那么断言可能非常糟糕。这并不是说它们总是错误的使用,它们是一种很容易被误用的结构。他们也有很多更好的选择。这样的事情很容易被称为邪恶。

例如,第三方模块(或任何模块)几乎不应该退出调用程序。这并没有给调用程序的程序员任何控制程序此时应该承担的风险。在许多情况下,数据是如此重要,即使保存损坏的数据也比丢失数据要好。断言可能会迫使您丢失数据。

断言的一些替代方法:

使用调试器, 控制台/数据库/其他日志 异常 其他类型的错误处理

参考:

http://ftp.gnu.org/old-gnu/Manuals/nana-1.14/html_node/nana_3.html http://www.lenholgate.com/blog/2005/09/assert-is-evil.html Go不提供断言,并且有很好的理由:http://golang.org/doc/faq#assertions http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?DoNotUseAssertions

甚至主张assert的人也认为它们应该只用于开发而不是生产:

http://codebetter.com/gregyoung/2007/12/12/asserts-are-not-evil/ http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/6404/Assert-is-your-friend http://parabellumgames.wordpress.com/using-asserts-for-debugging/

This person says that asserts should be used when the module has potentially corrupted data that persists after an exception is thrown: http://www.advogato.org/article/949.html . This is certainly a reasonable point, however, an external module should never prescribe how important corrupted data is to the calling program (by exiting "for" them). The proper way to handle this is by throwing an exception that makes it clear that the program may now be in an inconsistent state. And since good programs mostly consist of modules (with a little glue code in the main executable), asserts are almost always the wrong thing to do.

Assert被滥用用于错误处理,因为它的输入更少。

因此,作为语言设计者,他们应该看到,适当的错误处理可以用更少的输入完成。因为异常机制太冗长而排除assert并不是解决方案。哦,等等,Go也没有异常。太糟糕了:)

我很喜欢用断言。我发现当我第一次构建应用程序(可能是一个新的领域)时,它非常有用。我没有做非常花哨的错误检查(我认为是不成熟的优化),而是快速编码,并添加了大量断言。在我了解了更多事情的工作原理后,我重新编写并删除了一些断言并更改它们以更好地处理错误。

因为断言,我花更少的时间编码/调试程序。

我还注意到,断言可以帮助我想到许多可能破坏程序的东西。

作为附加信息,go提供了一个内置函数panic。这可以用来代替assert。如。

if x < 0 {
    panic("x is less than 0");
}

Panic将打印堆栈跟踪,因此在某种程度上它具有assert的目的。

不,去做和断言都不是坏事。但两者都可能被误用。

Assert用于完整性检查。如果它们不正确,就会杀死程序。不是为了验证或替换错误处理。