Clarity vs. code reuse/generality

[Tim Rowe]

2009/7/7 Steven D'Aprano <steve at remove-this-cybersource.com.au>:

> Maybe the reason for "so much buggy software" is that people
> inappropriately use assert, thus changing the behaviour of code depending
> on whether it is run with the -O flag or not.

I've done my share of code review and process audits, and assertions
seem *far* to rare for that distinction.

> I don't know what "hostility" you're seeing. The only hostility I'm
> seeing is from the OP, which is bizarre considering that he asked for
> advice and we gave it. What I see is a bunch of people concerned that the
> OP is teaching novices a bad habit, namely, using assert for error
> checking. He claims -- angrily and over and over again -- that in his
> code, the assertions should never fail. Great. Good for him for knowing
> when to use assert. But are the novices going to learn that lesson, or
> will they simply learn "use assert for error checking"?

They are rather more likely to learn if they are taught, aren't they?
Or do you think it's better to keep them in the dark? "There are these
things called assertions -- work them out for yourselves".

I am convinced that the time to teach programmers to consider under
what circumstances a routine can be called and who is responsible for
ensuring that those conditions are met is as soon as they hit the
concept of calling routines. And assertions provide an excellent way
of doing that, fostering good habits for the rest of their careers.
Any hostility from the OP seems to be a response to the persistent
refusal to accept his assurances that he is not using the assertions
for run-time error checking, nor teaching the students to do that,
-- 
Tim Rowe