We use static_assert
to check the bomb count because it provides compile-time checking, which offers several advantages over runtime checks. Let's explore why this is beneficial and how it differs from regular runtime checks.
static_assert
is evaluated during compilation, not when the program is running. This means any issues are caught before the program even runs, which can save time and prevent potential bugs from making it into the final executable.
Here's an example of how we use static_assert
in our Minesweeper game:
#include <iostream>
namespace Config {
inline constexpr int BOMB_COUNT{100};
inline constexpr int GRID_COLUMNS{8};
inline constexpr int GRID_ROWS{4};
static_assert(
BOMB_COUNT < GRID_COLUMNS * GRID_ROWS,
"Cannot have more bombs than cells"
);
}
int main() {
std::cout << "Game initialized successfully!\n";
}
If we try to compile this with an invalid configuration, we get a compile-time error:
error: static assertion failed: Cannot have more bombs than cells
static_assert
Let's compare this with a runtime check:
#include <iostream>
#include <stdexcept>
namespace Config {
inline constexpr int BOMB_COUNT{100};
inline constexpr int GRID_COLUMNS{8};
inline constexpr int GRID_ROWS{4};
} // namespace Config
void validateConfig() {
if (Config::BOMB_COUNT >=
Config::GRID_COLUMNS *
Config::GRID_ROWS) {
throw std::runtime_error(
"Cannot have more bombs than cells");
}
}
int main() {
try {
validateConfig();
std::cout
<< "Game initialized successfully!\n";
}
catch (const std::exception &e) {
std::cerr << "Error: " << e.what() << '\n';
return 1;
}
}
While this achieves the same goal, it has some drawbacks:
validateConfig()
isn't called.In our Minesweeper game, using static_assert
ensures that we can't accidentally create an invalid game configuration, making our code more robust and easier to maintain.
Answers to questions are automatically generated and may not have been reviewed.
Updating the game to to place bombs randomly in the grid and render them when cells are cleared.