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.

不，只要您按照预期使用assert，它就没有错。

也就是说，它应该用于在调试期间捕捉“不可能发生”的情况，而不是正常的错误处理。

断言:程序逻辑本身的失败。 错误处理:错误的输入或系统状态，不是由于程序中的错误造成的。

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:)

我从不使用assert()，示例通常是这样的:

int* ptr = new int[10];
assert(ptr);

这很糟糕，我从来没有这样做过，如果我的游戏分配了一堆怪物怎么办?为什么我要让游戏崩溃，相反，你应该优雅地处理错误，所以可以这样做:

CMonster* ptrMonsters = new CMonster[10];
if(ptrMonsters == NULL) // or u could just write if(!ptrMonsters)
{
    // we failed allocating monsters. log the error e.g. "Failed spawning 10 monsters".
}
else
{
    // initialize monsters.
}

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;

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.