所有的断言应该是代码，可以优化为:

Debug.Assert(true);

因为它检验的是你已经假设为真的东西。例如:

public static void ConsumeEnumeration<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source)
{
  if(source != null)
    using(var en = source.GetEnumerator())
      RunThroughEnumerator(en);
}
public static T GetFirstAndConsume<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source)
{
  if(source == null)
    throw new ArgumentNullException("source");
  using(var en = source.GetEnumerator())
  {
    if(!en.MoveNext())
      throw new InvalidOperationException("Empty sequence");
    T ret = en.Current;
    RunThroughEnumerator(en);
    return ret;
  }
}
private static void RunThroughEnumerator<T>(IEnumerator<T> en)
{
  Debug.Assert(en != null);
  while(en.MoveNext());
}

在上面，有三种不同的空参数方法。第一个接受它为允许的(它只是什么都不做)。第二个则抛出异常供调用代码处理(或不处理，导致错误消息)。第三种假设它不可能发生，并断言它是这样的。

在第一种情况下，没有问题。

在第二种情况下，调用代码有一个问题——它不应该用null调用GetFirstAndConsume，所以它会返回一个异常。

在第三种情况下，这段代码有一个问题，因为在调用它之前，它应该已经检查过en != null，所以它不是真的是一个错误。或者换句话说，它应该是理论上可以优化为Debug.Assert(true)的代码，sicne en != null应该始终为真!

简而言之

断言用于保护和检查契约式设计约束，即确保代码、对象、变量和参数的状态在预期设计的边界和限制内运行。

Asserts should be for Debug and non-Production builds only. Asserts are typically ignored by the compiler in Release builds. Asserts can check for bugs / unexpected conditions which ARE in the control of your system Asserts are NOT a mechanism for first-line validation of user input or business rules Asserts should not be used to detect unexpected environmental conditions (which are outside the control of the code) e.g. out of memory, network failure, database failure, etc. Although rare, these conditions are to be expected (and your app code cannot fix issues like hardware failure or resource exhaustion). Typically, exceptions will be thrown - your application can then either take corrective action (e.g. retry a database or network operation, attempt to free up cached memory), or abort gracefully if the exception cannot be handled. A failed Assertion should be fatal to your system - i.e. unlike an exception, do not try and catch or handle failed Asserts - your code is operating in unexpected territory. Stack Traces and crash dumps can be used to determine what went wrong.

断言有巨大的好处:

帮助查找用户输入的缺失验证，或高级代码中的上游错误。 代码库中的断言清楚地向读者传达了代码中所做的假设 Assert将在调试版本的运行时进行检查。 一旦对代码进行了详尽的测试，将代码重新构建为Release将消除验证假设的性能开销(但好处是，如果需要，后面的Debug构建将始终恢复检查)。

．.． 更详细地

Debug.Assert expresses a condition which has been assumed about state by the remainder of the code block within the control of the program. This can include the state of the provided parameters, state of members of a class instance, or that the return from a method call is in its contracted / designed range. Typically, asserts should crash the thread / process / program with all necessary info (Stack Trace, Crash Dump, etc), as they indicate the presence of a bug or unconsidered condition which has not been designed for (i.e. do not try and catch or handle assertion failures), with one possible exception of when an assertion itself could cause more damage than the bug (e.g. Air Traffic Controllers wouldn't want a YSOD when an aircraft goes submarine, although it is moot whether a debug build should be deployed to production ...)

什么时候应该使用断言?

At any point in a system, or library API, or service where the inputs to a function or state of a class are assumed valid (e.g. when validation has already been done on user input in the presentation tier of a system, the business and data tier classes typically assume that null checks, range checks, string length checks etc on input have been already done). Common Assert checks include where an invalid assumption would result in a null object dereference, a zero divisor, numerical or date arithmetic overflow, and general out of band / not designed for behaviour (e.g. if a 32 bit int was used to model a human's age, it would be prudent to Assert that the age is actually between 0 and 125 or so - values of -100 and 10^10 were not designed for).

.Net代码契约 在. net堆栈中，代码契约可以作为Debug.Assert的补充，也可以作为Debug.Assert的替代。代码契约可以进一步形式化状态检查，并且可以帮助在编译时(或者稍后，如果在IDE中作为背景检查运行)检测违反假设的情况。

契约式设计(DBC)检查包括:

合同。要求-约定的先决条件 合同。保证-合同后置条件 不变量——表示关于对象在其生命周期中所有点的状态的假设。 合同。当调用非契约装饰方法时，假定-安抚静态检查器。

John Robbins在《调试Microsoft . net 2.0应用程序》一书中有一大节是关于断言的。他的主要观点是:

Assert liberally. You can never have too many assertions. Assertions don't replace exceptions. Exceptions cover the things your code demands; assertions cover the things it assumes. A well-written assertion can tell you not just what happened and where (like an exception), but why. An exception message can often be cryptic, requiring you to work backwards through the code to recreate the context that caused the error. An assertion can preserve the program's state at the time the error occurred. Assertions double as documentation, telling other developers what implied assumptions your code depends on. The dialog that appears when an assertion fails lets you attach a debugger to the process, so you can poke around the stack as if you had put a breakpoint there.

PS:如果你喜欢《代码完成》，我推荐你继续阅读这本书。我买这本书是为了学习如何使用WinDBG和转储文件，但前半部分包含了一些帮助避免bug的技巧。

我已经在这里阅读了答案，我认为我应该添加一个重要的区别。使用断言有两种非常不同的方式。一种是作为临时的开发人员快捷方式，表示“这不应该真的发生，所以如果它发生了，就告诉我，这样我就可以决定怎么做”，有点像一个条件断点，用于你的程序能够继续的情况。另一种方法是在代码中假设有效的程序状态。

在第一种情况下，断言甚至不需要出现在最终代码中。您应该使用Debug。在开发期间断言，如果/当不再需要时，您可以删除它们。如果你想要保留它们或者忘记删除它们，没有问题，因为它们在发布汇编中不会有任何后果。

But in the second case, the assertions are part of the code. They, well, assert, that your assumptions are true, and also document them. In that case, you really want to leave them in the code. If the program is in an invalid state it should not be allowed to continue. If you couldn't afford the performance hit you wouldn't be using C#. On one hand it might be useful to be able to attach a debugger if it happens. On the other, you don't want the stack trace popping up on your users and perhaps more important you don't want them to be able to ignore it. Besides, if it's in a service it will always be ignored. Therefore in production the correct behavior would be to throw an Exception, and use the normal exception handling of your program, which might show the user a nice message and log the details.

跟踪。Assert有实现这一点的完美方法。它不会在生产环境中被删除，并且可以使用app.config配置不同的侦听器。 因此，对于开发来说，默认的处理程序就可以了，对于生产来说，您可以创建一个简单的TraceListener(如下所示)，它会抛出一个异常并在生产配置文件中激活它。

using System.Diagnostics;

public class ExceptionTraceListener : DefaultTraceListener
{
    [DebuggerStepThrough]
    public override void Fail(string message, string detailMessage)
    {
        throw new AssertException(message);
    }
}

public class AssertException : Exception
{
    public AssertException(string message) : base(message) { }
}

在产品配置文件中:

<system.diagnostics>
  <trace>
    <listeners>
      <remove name="Default"/>
      <add name="ExceptionListener" type="Namespace.ExceptionTraceListener,AssemblyName"/>
    </listeners>
  </trace>
 </system.diagnostics>

在我的书里几乎从来没有。 在绝大多数情况下，如果你想检查一切是否正常，那么就扔掉。

我不喜欢的是，它使调试构建在功能上与发布构建不同。如果调试断言失败，但功能在发布中工作，那么这有什么意义呢?如果断言者早已离开公司，没有人知道这部分代码，那就更好了。然后你就得花点时间去探索这个问题，看看它是不是真的是个问题。如果这是一个问题，那为什么那个人不第一时间扔呢?

对我来说，这建议使用调试。声称你把问题推给别人，自己解决问题。如果某件事应该是这样，但事实并非如此，那就扔掉。

我猜可能有一些性能关键的场景，你想要优化你的断言，它们在那里很有用，但是我还没有遇到这样的场景。

我不知道它在c#和。net中是怎样的，但在C中assert()只在使用- ddebug编译时工作-如果没有编译，最终用户将永远不会看到assert()。仅供开发人员使用。我经常使用它，它有时更容易跟踪错误。