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

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”。

其他回答

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.

我最近开始在我的代码中添加一些断言,这是我一直在做的:

我在心里把代码分为边界代码和内部代码。边界代码是处理用户输入、读取文件和从网络获取数据的代码。在这段代码中,我在一个循环中请求输入,该循环仅在输入有效时退出(在交互式用户输入的情况下),或者在不可恢复的文件/网络损坏数据的情况下抛出异常。

内部代码就是一切。例如,在我的类中设置变量的函数可以定义为

void Class::f (int value) {
    assert (value < end);
    member = value;
}

从网络获取输入的函数可以这样读:

void Class::g (InMessage & msg) {
    int const value = msg.read_int();
    if (value >= end)
        throw InvalidServerData();
    f (value);
}

This gives me two layers of checks. Anything where the data is determined at run-time always gets an exception or immediate error handling. However, that extra check in Class::f with the assert statement means that if some internal code ever calls Class::f, I still have a sanity check. My internal code might not pass a valid argument (because I may have calculated value from some complex series of functions), so I like having the assertion in the setting function to document that regardless of who is calling the function, value must not be greater than or equal to end.

这似乎符合我在一些地方读到的内容,即在一个功能良好的程序中,断言应该是不可能违反的,而例外应该是针对仍然可能发生的异常和错误情况。因为理论上我要验证所有输入,所以我的断言不应该被触发。如果是,我的程序就错了。

与其说是坏事,不如说是适得其反。永久性错误检查和调试是分开的。Assert让人们认为所有的调试都应该是永久性的,使用过多会导致大量的可读性问题。在需要时,永久错误处理应该比这种方法更好,由于assert会导致自己的错误,因此这是一种非常值得怀疑的实践。

是的,断言是邪恶的。

它们通常用于应该使用正确错误处理的地方。从一开始就要习惯编写正确的产品质量错误处理程序!

通常它们会妨碍编写单元测试(除非您编写了与测试工具交互的自定义断言)。这通常是因为它们被用于应该使用正确错误处理的地方。

大多数情况下,它们是从发布版本中编译出来的,这意味着当你运行实际发布的代码时,它们的“测试”是不可用的;考虑到在多线程情况下,最糟糕的问题通常只出现在发布代码中,这可能很糟糕。

有时,他们是一个拐杖,否则破碎的设计;也就是说,代码的设计允许用户以一种不应该被调用的方式调用它,而断言“阻止”了这一点。修改设计!

早在2005年,我就在我的博客http://www.lenholgate.com/blog/2005/09/assert-is-evil.html上写过更多关于这方面的内容

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?