Timeline for Is Java assert broken?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
28 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 6, 2023 at 23:50 | comment | added | Guildenstern | Pedagogic question and answer in one post! | |
| S Jul 17, 2011 at 15:53 | history | suggested | avandeursen |
Added design-by-contract as tag (as the selected answer is about design by contract).
|
|
| Jul 17, 2011 at 15:47 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jul 17, 2011 at 15:53 | |||||
| Jul 17, 2011 at 15:46 | answer | added | avandeursen | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jul 17, 2011 at 15:23 | comment | added | avandeursen | See also Bertrand Meyer's paper comparing design by contract with defensive programming, addressing the issue of 'redundant' checks. | |
| Jun 9, 2010 at 16:48 | vote | accept | BlairHippo | ||
| May 4, 2010 at 0:30 | comment | added | Kevin Bourrillion | An assert is little more than an "executable comment". As such it has some small nonzero value to the future reader of the code. | |
| May 3, 2010 at 17:34 | comment | added | BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft | You may be interested to know that .Net now has a feature similar to this which verifies arguments at compile time (where it can), meant for actual production. | |
| May 3, 2010 at 17:23 | history | edited | BlairHippo | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 39 characters in body
|
| May 3, 2010 at 17:15 | answer | added | Jay | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 3, 2010 at 17:06 | history | edited | BlairHippo | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 1312 characters in body; added 2 characters in body
|
| May 3, 2010 at 16:44 | comment | added | BlairHippo | @DJClayworth: That distinction does indeed make asserts seem MUCH more viable in my own head, thank you. | |
| May 3, 2010 at 16:34 | comment | added | DJClayworth | The enlightenment you are looking for is this: assertions are to aid debugging, not to be part of production code. | |
| May 3, 2010 at 16:12 | answer | added | Alexander Pogrebnyak | timeline score: 3 | |
| May 3, 2010 at 15:52 | answer | added | Daniel Daranas | timeline score: 23 | |
| May 3, 2010 at 15:50 | answer | added | Justin Ethier | timeline score: 3 | |
| May 3, 2010 at 15:50 | answer | added | Oak | timeline score: 5 | |
| May 3, 2010 at 15:50 | answer | added | cHao | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 3, 2010 at 15:49 | answer | added | ColinD | timeline score: 0 | |
| May 3, 2010 at 15:47 | answer | added | gustafc | timeline score: 20 | |
| May 3, 2010 at 15:47 | comment | added | BlairHippo | @Joachim: Understood, but seriously, I'm here looking for enlightenment. This feature really does seem broken to me -- but that feels on par with saying "I don't see what's wrong with my code, therefore the compiler must be broken!", just on a higher level. I really feel like I'm missing something. If you can suggest a way for me to express WHY the feature strikes me as broken that doesn't strike you as a rant, I'm listening. | |
| May 3, 2010 at 15:46 | comment | added | Michael Myers♦ | Have you ever used ASSERTs in C or C++? Have you ever wished you could turn them on or off at the snap of a finger? | |
| May 3, 2010 at 15:46 | answer | added | Michael Mrozek | timeline score: 5 | |
| May 3, 2010 at 15:46 | answer | added | Fazal | timeline score: 4 | |
| May 3, 2010 at 15:45 | answer | added | WhirlWind | timeline score: 0 | |
| May 3, 2010 at 15:43 | history | edited | Kelly S. French |
added tags
|
|
| May 3, 2010 at 15:39 | comment | added | Joachim Sauer | This looks a lot like a rant, and not like a question at all. | |
| May 3, 2010 at 15:36 | history | asked | BlairHippo | CC BY-SA 2.5 |