Program logic bugs vs input/environmental errors

[Dicebot via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 8 October 2014 at 03:20:21 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> Can we at least agree that Dicebot's request for having the 
>> behaviour of
>> inadvisable constructs defined such that an implementation 
>> cannot randomly
>> change behaviour and then have the developers close down the 
>> corresponding
>> bugzilla issue because it was the user's fault anyway is not 
>> unreasonable by
>> definition because the system will not reach a perfect state 
>> anyway, and then
>> retire this discussion?
>
> I've been working with Dicebot behind the scenes to help 
> resolve the particular issues with the code he's responsible 
> for.
>
> As for D, D cannot offer any guarantees about behavior after a 
> program crash. Nor can any other language.

Just wanted to point out that resulting solution (== manually 
switching many of contracts to exceptions from asserts) to me is 
an unhappy workaround to deal with overly opinionated language 
and not actually a solution. I still consider this a problem.