Comparison With Error Handling
It is worth distinguishing assertions from routine error-handling. Assertions should be used to document logically impossible situations and discover programming errors — if the impossible occurs, then something fundamental is clearly wrong. This is distinct from error handling: most error conditions are possible, although some may be extremely unlikely to occur in practice. Using assertions as a general-purpose error handling mechanism is unwise: assertions do not allow for recovery from errors; an assertion failure will normally halt the program's execution abruptly. Assertions also do not display a user-friendly error message.
Consider the following example of using an assertion to handle an error:
int *ptr = malloc(sizeof(int) * 10); assert(ptr); // use ptr ...Here, the programmer is aware that malloc will return a NULL pointer if memory is not allocated. This is possible: the operating system does not guarantee that every call to malloc will succeed. If an out of memory error occurs the program will immediately abort. Without the assertion, the program would continue running until ptr was dereferenced, and possibly longer, depending on the specific hardware being used. So long as assertions are not disabled, an immediate exit is assured. But if a graceful failure is desired, the program has to handle the failure. For example, a server may have multiple clients, or may hold resources that will not be released cleanly, or it may have uncommitted changes to write to a datastore. In such cases it is better to fail a single transaction than to abort abruptly.
Read more about this topic: Assertion (computing)
Famous quotes containing the words comparison with, comparison, error and/or handling:
“Certainly there is not the fight recorded in Concord history, at least, if in the history of America, that will bear a moments comparison with this, whether for the numbers engaged in it, or for the patriotism and heroism displayed.”
—Henry David Thoreau (18171862)
“The comparison between Coleridge and Johnson is obvious in so far as each held sway chiefly by the power of his tongue. The difference between their methods is so marked that it is tempting, but also unnecessary, to judge one to be inferior to the other. Johnson was robust, combative, and concrete; Coleridge was the opposite. The contrast was perhaps in his mind when he said of Johnson: his bow-wow manner must have had a good deal to do with the effect produced.”
—Virginia Woolf (18821941)
“An error is the more dangerous in proportion to the degree of truth which it contains.”
—Henri-Frédéric Amiel (18211881)
“Many more children observe attitudes, values and ways different from or in conflict with those of their families, social networks, and institutions. Yet todays young people are no more mature or capable of handling the increased conflicting and often stimulating information they receive than were young people of the past, who received the information and had more adult control of and advice about the information they did receive.”
—James P. Comer (20th century)