就其价值而言……我发现我的公共方法倾向于使用if () {throw;}模式，以确保方法被正确调用。我的私有方法倾向于使用Debug.Assert()。

The idea is that with my private methods, I'm the one under control, so if I start calling one of my own private methods with parameters that are incorrect, then I've broken my own assumption somewhere--I should have never gotten into that state. In production, these private asserts should ideally be unnecessary work since I am supposed to be keeping my internal state valid and consistent. Contrast with parameters given to public methods, which could be called by anyone at runtime: I still need to enforce parameter constraints there by throwing exceptions.

此外，如果某些东西在运行时不起作用(网络错误、数据访问错误、从第三方服务检索的坏数据等)，我的私有方法仍然可以抛出异常。我的断言只是为了确保我没有破坏我自己关于对象状态的内部假设。

您应该始终使用第二种方法(抛出异常)。

同样，如果你是在生产环境中(并且有一个发布版本)，抛出一个异常(在最坏的情况下让应用程序崩溃)比处理无效值和可能破坏客户数据(这可能要花费数千美元)要好。

摘自《实用程序员:从熟练工到高手》

Leave Assertions Turned On There is a common misunderstanding about assertions, promulgated by the people who write compilers and language environments. It goes something like this: Assertions add some overhead to code. Because they check for things that should never happen, they'll get triggered only by a bug in the code. Once the code has been tested and shipped, they are no longer needed, and should be turned off to make the code run faster. Assertions are a debugging facility. There are two patently wrong assumptions here. First, they assume that testing finds all the bugs. In reality, for any complex program you are unlikely to test even a miniscule percentage of the permutations your code will be put through (see Ruthless Testing). Second, the optimists are forgetting that your program runs in a dangerous world. During testing, rats probably won't gnaw through a communications cable, someone playing a game won't exhaust memory, and log files won't fill the hard drive. These things might happen when your program runs in a production environment. Your first line of defense is checking for any possible error, and your second is using assertions to try to detect those you've missed. Turning off assertions when you deliver a program to production is like crossing a high wire without a net because you once made it across in practice. There's dramatic value, but it's hard to get life insurance. Even if you do have performance issues, turn off only those assertions that really hit you.

如果我是你，我会这样做:

Debug.Assert(val != null);
if ( val == null )
    throw new exception();

或者避免重复条件检查

if ( val == null )
{
    Debug.Assert(false,"breakpoint if val== null");
    throw new exception();
}

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。

就其价值而言……我发现我的公共方法倾向于使用if () {throw;}模式，以确保方法被正确调用。我的私有方法倾向于使用Debug.Assert()。

The idea is that with my private methods, I'm the one under control, so if I start calling one of my own private methods with parameters that are incorrect, then I've broken my own assumption somewhere--I should have never gotten into that state. In production, these private asserts should ideally be unnecessary work since I am supposed to be keeping my internal state valid and consistent. Contrast with parameters given to public methods, which could be called by anyone at runtime: I still need to enforce parameter constraints there by throwing exceptions.

此外，如果某些东西在运行时不起作用(网络错误、数据访问错误、从第三方服务检索的坏数据等)，我的私有方法仍然可以抛出异常。我的断言只是为了确保我没有破坏我自己关于对象状态的内部假设。