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.

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。

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。

这种情况经常出现，我认为让断言辩护令人困惑的一个问题是，它们通常基于参数检查。所以考虑一下这个不同的例子，当你使用断言时:

build-sorted-list-from-user-input(input)

    throw-exception-if-bad-input(input)

    ...

    //build list using algorithm that you expect to give a sorted list

    ...

    assert(is-sorted(list))

end

您对输入使用异常是因为您预计有时会得到错误的输入。您断言对列表进行排序是为了帮助您找到算法中的bug，根据定义，这是您所不期望的。断言只存在于调试版本中，因此即使检查的开销很大，您也不介意对例程的每次调用都进行检查。

您仍然需要对产品代码进行单元测试，但这是确保代码正确的一种不同的补充方式。单元测试确保您的例程符合其接口，而断言是一种更细粒度的方法，以确保您的实现完全按照您的期望进行。

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.

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.