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

我非常不喜欢断言。但我不会说他们是邪恶的。

基本上,assert将做与未检查异常相同的事情,唯一的例外是assert(通常)不应该为最终产品保留。

If you build a safety net for yourself while debugging and building the system why would you deny this safety net for your customer, or your support help desk, or anyone that will get to use the software that you are currently building. Use exceptions exclusively for both asserts and exceptional situations. By creating an appropriate exception hierarchy you will be able to discern very quickly one from the other. Except this time the assert remains in place and can provide valuable information in case of failure that would otherwise be lost.

因此,我完全理解Go的创建者完全删除断言并强迫程序员使用异常来处理这种情况。对此有一个简单的解释,异常只是一种更好的工作机制为什么要坚持使用古老的断言?

其他回答

简短的回答:不,我相信断言可能有用

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。

它们应该用于检测程序中的错误。不错的用户输入。

如果使用得当,它们并不邪恶。

当我看到这个的时候,我真想踢作者的头。

我在代码中一直使用断言,并最终在编写更多代码时将它们全部替换掉。当我还没有编写所需的逻辑时,我就会使用它们,当我运行到代码时,我想要得到警告,而不是编写一个将在项目接近完成时删除的异常。

异常也更容易融入到产品代码中,这是我不喜欢的。断言比抛出新异常("一些通用的msg或'pretend i am An assert'")更容易注意到;

Assert非常有用,可以在出现意外错误时通过在出现问题的第一个迹象时停止程序来节省大量回溯时间。

另一方面,断言很容易被滥用。

int quotient(int a, int b){
    assert(b != 0);
    return a / b;
}

正确的说法应该是:

bool quotient(int a, int b, int &result){
    if(b == 0)
        return false;

    result = a / b;
    return true;
}

所以…从长远来看……从大局来看……我必须同意断言可能会被滥用。我一直都这么做。