Assert is (usually) Debug Only
The problem with "assert" is that it is usually in debug binaries, and that some developers use them as if the code would still be in production.
This is not evil per se, as the code is supposed to be intensively tested, and thus, the bugs producing the assert will surely be discovered, and removed.
But sometimes (most of the times?), the tests are not as intensive as wanted. I won't speak about an old job where we had to code until the very last minute (don't asks... Sometimes, managers are just... Ahem...)... What's the point of an assert you adding to a code that will be compiled and delivered as a Release Binary to the client the next minute?
Assert in (some) real life applications
In our team, we needed something to detect the error, and at the same time something else to handle the error. And we needed it, potentially, on Release Build.
Assert will both detect and handle the error only on debug build.
So we added instead a XXX_ASSERT macro, as well as a XXX_RAISE_ERROR macro.
The XXX_ASSERT macro would do the same thing as the ASSERT macro, but it would be built both in Debug and in Release. Its behaviour (write a log, open a messagebox, do nothing, etc.) could be controlled by a .INI file, and THEN, it would abort/exit the application.
This was used as:
bool doSomething(MyObject * p)
{
// If p is NULL, then the app will abort/exit
XXX_ASSERT((p != NULL), "Hey ! p is NULL !") ;
// etc.
}
XXX_RAISE_ERROR macro would only "log" the error but would not try to handle it. This means that it could log the message in a file and/or open a MessageBox with the message , and a button to continue, and another to launch a debug session (as per .INI file config). This was used as:
bool doSomething(MyObject * p)
{
if(p == NULL)
{
// First, XXX_RAISE_ERROR will alert the user as configured in the INI file
// perhaps even offering to open a debug session
XXX_RAISE_ERROR("Hey ! p is NULL !") ;
// here, you can handle the error as you wish
// Than means allocating p, or throwing an exception, or
// returning false, etc.
// Whereas the XXX_ASSERT could simply crash.
}
// etc.
}
One year after their introduction in our libs, only XXX_RAISE_ERROR is being used. Of course, it can't be used on time-critical parts of the app (we have a XXX_RAISE_ERROR_DBG for that), but everywhere else, it is good. And the facts that one can use whatever prefered error handling, and that it can be activated at will, either on the developer computer, or the tester, or even the user, is quite useful.