I don't like it.

I'm all for signing up for a contract if it can turn a runtime error into a compile time error. However, this looks like it just makes more runtime errors. At that point, these seem no better than `assert` except for the fact that they promise to really assert (probably).

The article also points out a big problem which is "Importantly, this aspect of Contracts is why contract assertions must not be used for error handling and input validation: If a function has in-contract requirements to report certain events as errors, that handling must be done with standard C++ control statements that are not optional, never with contract assertions."

That sort of muddy definition of what contracts are supposed to be used for is almost certainly going to make a mess. It's not input validation, but parameter validation.. but not really validation but rather checks which error out, but it's not errors we are producing.

This is the biggest problem with contracts, there's simply no way to actually say "please always execute this check". A lot of people replying seem to think that the critique is with the concept of contract based programming, but the C++ version of contracts is just weird

The programming model for C++ contracts as described by the authors, and spec, is that they are 'ghost code'. You must never assume that a contract check is actually executed, even if you've asked your compiler to execute your contract checks. This is because ABI/ODR problems can and will cause your contract checks to be deleted, as well as the 'observe' contract mode which is a strange one

So its hard to know what the use case for them is as a result. You can't use them for safety checks, because you must assume they won't be run. Hilariously, they actually introduce safety problems vs asset: Eg take two pieces of code:

    assert(p != nullptr);

    assert(p->some_value());

    contract_assert(p != nullptr);

    contract_assert(p->some_value());

I have a feeling that in 10 years the advice will be to never use contracts in anything approaching code that needs safety, as they're generally less safe than using an assert for no real reason. So what's their use case?

It’s a standard way to do pre and post conditions. Clojure pre and post conditions also behave this way. If you force these conditions into compile-time checks, well, then you are introducing a second type system with refinement types into the language. And type checking would take a long time. Imagine someone writes a precondition for a function where its integer argument x needs to satisfy collatz(x)==1; do you now expect the compiler to prove the collatz conjecture or verify it for all 64-bit integers every compilation?

My experience using pre and post conditions in Clojure makes me really like them. They are a small but meaningful improvement over plain old assertions. And yes being able to turn them off is a feature not a bug. Don’t expect them to be like LiquidHaskell.

>I'm all for signing up for a contract if it can turn a runtime error into a compile time error.

You can get compile-time errors with static code analysis tools with it but the main goal is to direct the compiler towards optimizations for restricted case, IMHO. If you know beforehand the kind of values you are using then the only sure way to let the compiler know is to write code in such a way that the values you don't expect result in UB, which is not always possible or convenient. Contracts allow a regular way to do the same. It does not mean the compiler will use this knowledge but it will remain in your code and might be used eventually.

For example, if you want to align an integral value on x you can write something like ((value + x-1)/x)*x, however, if x is a power of 2 then you can do (value + x-1) & ~x, which is likely faster. As of now, gcc 16 does not do this optimization even with contracts, but if you recorded this in code, some future compiler might do this. Without contracts the chances for this are much lower.

contracts are intended to document hoare logic. i.e. pre, post, invariant.

They can be compile time if the compiler can verify them statically (where they become a noop), runtime otherwise, or disabled entirely if you can't prove them statically but don't want the overhead cost.

Realistically contracts will gradually evolve towards static/compile time asserts as tooling improves.

And like the blog post states, contracts are explicitly not input validation. They are there to encode what you expect and what you don't internally in your code rather than just documenting those pre/post/invariant conditions in comments.

The bit about contracts not being input valuation is no different than the case for assertions. It's basically saying that if assertions were inappropriate, so are contracts. So if you find that like blurry, the blurriness predates contracts.

That said, the distinction is generally pretty clear: an assertion failure (and therefore a contract failure) indicates a bug. It must never happen, and therefore it must always be OK to suppress the validation. If you see it fire, that's a bug report, and your code needs fixing. And if your contract to the caller is that you will enforce some constraint on them (as opposed to assuming they already took care of ensuring it), then you need the validation in your runtime code.

I would phrase the difference between contracts and input validation like this:

- If it can happen, but shouldn't, that's input validation (e.g. the user inputs an empty name)

- If it can't happen and shouldn't, that's a contract (e.g. I checked that this string is non-empty in the function that calls this one, so I already know it's non-empty. Also my linked list has a head and a tail because that's how my constructor made it)

Most bugs happen in the space of things that the programmer thinks shouldn't happen but happen anyways. That is why contracts are useful. But in a bug-free program they also don't do anything, so allowing you to turn them off with a compiler flag is reasonable. Just like asserts, but a bit more useful for tooling, IDEs, etc. Also with an observe mode that allows you to find bugs in production without crashing your whole process

They are basically asserts that you can put in headers. Which is great because asserts are usually useless to IDEs because you only get the headers for libraries.

And with the 'observe' mode you can turn them on in production code right away and collect data without a failed assert terminating.

You should check out the Racket programming language. They actually don’t have types at all in their documentation, they only have preconditions and postconditions which are very helpful in telling you if a function expects non-negative integers or something.

In my C compiler rcc I throw compile-time errors of course. Not a full SMT solver like z3, just a self written solver, but it works fine and fast enough. Runtime errors are just glorified asserts, lame.

Preconditions cannot be checked at compile time in all cases.

they are literally meant to be better asserts, that can be shown on a function declaration.

You need to study Bertrand Meyer's "Design by Contract" and "Applying Design by Contract" papers - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48358691

There are also ways to turn runtime contract checks into static verification checks. See my other comment for details/links - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50108112

If someone wants contracts in C++, why not just use Eiffel?