It's not a substitute, an assertion only makes sure that it doesn't happen unnoticed, a proof says that it doesn't happen at all. I might prefer to know that my reactor control system has no overflow ahead of time, rather than getting an assertion and crashing if it happens (though it would be a bad reactor control system if it couldn't handle crashes).

▲

0xDEAFBEAD 6 hours ago | parent [-]

OK, but that's a reactor control system. If your application has no time-critical aspect, is there any good reason to prefer a proof over an assert?

▲

dbdr 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Will your users be happier to get an assertion failure when they run your code, compared to no error?

(the tradeoff of course being that they might get your code later because it took more time to prove the code is correct)

	▲	0xDEAFBEAD 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		What if it's an internal tool, where correctness matters a lot, but failures matter little? E.g. roll back all database changes in case of assertion failure. Perhaps an accounting thing or something of that nature.

▲

addaon 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If your application has no time-critical aspect, why are you working on it now? There’s plenty of time to get to it later.

	▲	0xDEAFBEAD 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Very funny!

▲

empath75 28 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Because a run-time error produces a failure at runtime or a crash. You would much prefer that errors are impossible.