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。

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。

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。

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。

根据设计标准，你应该

坚持每一个假设。平均每五行就有一个断言。

using System.Diagnostics;

object GetObject()
{...}

object someObject = GetObject();
Debug.Assert(someObject != null);

作为一个免责声明，我应该提到我还没有发现实现这个IRL是实际的。但这是他们的标准。

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.