Higgs, a JavaScript JIT done in D

[Timon Gehr]

On 02/03/2013 11:14 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:
> On Sunday, 3 February 2013 at 22:00:05 UTC, bearophile wrote:
>> Nick Sabalausky:
>>
>>> Why is it silly? (Genuine question)
>>
>> "Silly" wasn't the right word, sorry.
>>
>> But generally if a language offers you a clean feature (D contract
>> programming is designed clean enough) it's better to use it, when you
>> clearly need it.
>
> I don't use D contracts, even though I use asserts.
>
> I find that adding contracts bloats my code quite a lot, making it less
> readable.
>
> real log(real x)
> in
> {
>      assert(x > 0);
> }
> body
> {
>      return ...;
> }
>

If the code is written consistently in this vertically-bloated style, it 
is 'less readable' anyway. Contracts will not make a huge difference. :o)


> v.s.
>
> real log(real x)
> {
>      assert(x > 0);
>      return ...;
> }
>

real log(real x) in{ assert(x > 0); }body{
     return ...;
}

real log(real x) in{
     assert(x > 0);
}body{
     return ...;
}

> As far as I'm aware there is no difference except when inheritance is
> involved, so it's an easy choice for me.

The difference is that the first version of log given above may be 
correct whereas the second is certainly buggy (pass in 0 and it fails). 
As correctness is not necessarily modular, the entire code base as a 
unit may still work correctly if it contains either version. That's why 
your approach is practicable in the absence of a tool/review process 
that checks assertions in a modular way.