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。

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?

我承认使用了断言，但没有考虑适当的错误报告。然而，这并不意味着它们在正确使用时是非常有用的。

They are especially useful for if you want to follow the "Crash Early" principle. For example suppose you're implementing a reference counting mechanism. At certain locations in your code you know that the refcount should be zero or one. And also suppose that if the refcount is wrong the program won't crash immediately but during the next message loop at which point it will be difficult to find out why things went wrong. An assert would have been helpful in detecting the error closer to its origin.

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。

按照这种逻辑，断点也是邪恶的。

断言应该用作调试辅助，而不是其他。“邪恶”是当你试图使用它们而不是错误处理时。

断言的存在是为了帮助程序员检测和修复不可能存在的问题，并验证您的假设是否正确。

它们与错误处理无关，但不幸的是，一些程序员滥用它们，然后宣称它们是“邪恶的”。