Yes, sometimes, the compiler or the hardware have bugs that violate the premises you're operating on, but that's rare. But most non pure algorithms (side effects and external systems) have documented failure cases.
I think it does have some value: it makes clear an assumption the programmer made. I always appreciate it when I encounter comments that clarify assumptions made.
Keep two copies or three like RAID?
Edit: ECC ram helps for sure, but what else?
Unless you are in the extremely small minority of people who would actually be affected by it (in which case your company would already have bought ECC ram and made you work with three isolated processes that need to agree to proceed): you don't. You eat shit, crash and restart.
Which are all well and good when they are applicable, which is not always 100% of the time.
> Because I usually do checks against the length of the array
And what do you have your code do if such "checks" fail? Throw an assertion error? Which is my whole point, I'm advocating in favor of sanity-check exceptions.
Or does calling them "checks" instead of "assumptions" magically make them less brittle from surrounding code changes?
I was mainly responding to TFA, which states "How many times did you leave a comment on some branch of code stating 'this CANNOT happen' and thrown an exception" (emphasis mine), i.e., an assertion error alongside the comment. The author argues that you should use error values rather than exceptions. But for such sanity checks, there's typically no useful way to handle such an error value.
if array.Len > 2 { X = Y[1] }
For every CRUD to that array?
That seems... not ideal
Yes, which is one reason why decent code generally avoids doing that.
> e.g. split an array into slices and access those slices
How is this not indexing with a little abstraction? Aren't slices just a way of packaging an array with a length field it a standard way? I'm not aware of many array implementations without a length (and usually also capacity) field somewhere , so this seems like a mostly meaningless distinction (ie all sclices are arrays, right).
The main thing you do with arrays is bulk operations (e.g. multiply it by something), which doesn't require indexing into it. But yeah I think they're a fairly niche datastructure that shouldn't be privileged the way certain languages do.
> How is this not indexing with a little abstraction? Aren't slices just a way of packaging an array with a length field it a standard way?
Sure (well, offset and length rather than just a length) but the abstraction is safe whereas directly indexing into the array isn't.
Ensuring a message encourages people to state the assumptions that are violated, rather than just asserting that their assumptions (which?) don't hold.
- assert!() (always checked),
- debug_assert!() (only run in debug builds)
- unreachable!() (panics)
- unsafe unreachable_unchecked() (tells the compiler it can optimise assuming this is actually unreachable)
- if cfg!(debug_assertions) { … } (Turns into if(0){…} in release mode. There’s also a macro variant if you need debug code to be compiled out.)
This way you can decide on a case by case basis when your asserts are worth keeping in release mode.
And it’s worth noting, sometimes a well placed assert before the start of a loop can improve performance thanks to llvm.
debug_assert!() (and it's equivalent in other languages, like C's assert with NDEBUG) is cursed. It states that you believe something to be true, but will take no automatic action if it is false; so you must implement the fallback behavior if your assumption is false manually (even if that fallback is just fallthrough). But you can't /test/ that fallback behavior in debug builds, which means you now need to run your test suite(s) in both debug and release build versions. While this is arguably a good habit anyway (although not as good a habit as just not having separate debug and release builds), deliberately diverging behavior between the two, and having tests that only work on one or the other, is pretty awful.
For example, I’m pretty sure some complex invariant holds. Checking it is expensive, and I don’t want to actually check the invariant every time this function runs in the final build. However, if that invariant were false, I’d certainly like to know that when I run my unit tests.
Using debug_assert is a way to do this. It also communicates to anyone reading the code what the invariants are.
If all I had was assert(), there’s a bunch of assertions I’d leave out of my code because they’re too expensive. debug_assert lets me put them in without paying the cost.
And yes, you should run unit tests in release mode too.
If there's a known bug in a program, you can try and write recovery code to work around it. But its almost always better to just fix the bug. Small, simple, correct programs are better than large, complex, buggy programs.
Correct. But how are you testing that you successfully crash in this case, instead of corrupting on-disk data stores or propagating bad data? That needs a test.
In a language like rust, failed assertions panic. And panics generally aren't "caught".
> instead of corrupting on-disk data stores
If your code interacts with the filesystem or the network, you never know when a network cable will be cut or power will go out anyway. You're always going to need testing for inconvenient crashes.
IMO, the best way to do this is by stubbing out the filesystem and then using randomised testing to verify that no matter what the program does, it can still successfully open any written (or partially written) data. Its not easy to write tests like that, but if you actually want a reliable system they're worth their weight in gold.
This thread was discussing debug_assert, where the assertions are compiled out in release code.
I think the idea is that those asserts should never be hit in the first place, because the code is correct.
In reality, its a mistake to add too many asserts to your code. Certainly not so many that performance tanks. There's always a point where, after doing what you can to make your code correct, at runtime you gotta trust that you've done a good enough job and let the program run.
I don't think any C programmer (where assert() is just debug_assert!() and there is no assert!()) is writing code like:
assert(arr_len > 5);
if (arr_len <= 5) {
// do something
}
> I think it does have some value: it makes clear an assumption the programmer made.
To me, a comment such as the above is about the only acceptable time to either throw an exception (in languages which support that construct) or otherwise terminate execution (such as exiting the process). If further understanding of the problem domain identifies what was thought impossible to be rare or unlikely instead, then introducing use of a disjoint union type capable of producing either an error or the expected result is in order.
Most of the time, "this CANNOT happen" falls into the category of "it happens, but rarely" and is best addressed with types and verified by the compiler.
If you see it you immediately know the class of error is purely a logic error the programmer made a programming mistake. Logging it makes it explicit your program has a logic bug.
What if you didn’t log it? Then at runtime you will have to deduce the error from symptoms. The log tells you explicitly what the error is.