Using static_assert for Bomb Count

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:

1#include <iostream>
2
3namespace Config {
4  inline constexpr int BOMB_COUNT{100};
5  inline constexpr int GRID_COLUMNS{8};
6  inline constexpr int GRID_ROWS{4};
7
8  static_assert(
9    BOMB_COUNT < GRID_COLUMNS * GRID_ROWS,
10    "Cannot have more bombs than cells"
11  );
12}
13
14int main() {
15  std::cout << "Game initialized successfully!\n";
16}

If we try to compile this with an invalid configuration, we get a compile-time error:

1error: static assertion failed: Cannot have more bombs than cells

1. Early Error Detection: Errors are caught during compilation, preventing invalid configurations from being built.
2. No Runtime Overhead: Since the check is done at compile-time, there's no performance impact when the game is running.
3. Self-Documenting Code: The assertion clearly states the requirement, serving as documentation.

Let's compare this with a runtime check:

1#include <iostream>
2#include <stdexcept>
3
4namespace Config {
5  inline constexpr int BOMB_COUNT{100};
6  inline constexpr int GRID_COLUMNS{8};
7  inline constexpr int GRID_ROWS{4};
8} // namespace Config
9
10void validateConfig() {
11  if (Config::BOMB_COUNT >=
12      Config::GRID_COLUMNS *
13        Config::GRID_ROWS) {
14    throw std::runtime_error(
15      "Cannot have more bombs than cells");
16  }
17}
18
19int main() {
20  try {
21    validateConfig();
22    std::cout
23      << "Game initialized successfully!\n";
24  }
25  catch (const std::exception &e) {
26    std::cerr << "Error: " << e.what() << '\n';
27    return 1;
28  }
29}

While this achieves the same goal, it has some drawbacks:

• The error is only caught when the program runs.
• There's a slight runtime performance cost.
• The check could potentially be bypassed if 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.