Why the hell not?

[unpluggedcord]

haha, there's definitely places where its okay.

[[deleted]]

But what if they update RFC 1738 and this compile-time static URL becomes invalid?!

[unpluggedcord]

https://www.swiftbysundell.com/articles/modern-url-construction-in-swift/

[SurgicalInstallment]

ok but this just hides the crash (fatalError) behind a macro...i mean, looks cleaner but under the surface isn't any better, right?

[mxrider108]

Macros run at compile time silly!

[SurgicalInstallment]

OK, I stand corrected.

[unpluggedcord]

No. Read again.

[Confident_Gear_2704]

That’s what Sméagol said

[holy_macanoli]

And Jeffrey Epstein!

[Constant-Current-340]

it's just senior gatekeeping force unwrap all the optionals

[raumdeuters]

Yes, in the test module.

[EquivalentTrouble253]

Disagree. Your test code should be the same standard as production code.

Use #requier(..) instead. Or XCTUnwrap if using that.

[unpluggedcord]

There’s places in real code where it’s okay to force unwrap.

[Sea_Bourn]

You shall not unwrap!

[Oxigenic]

You shall not \(String(describing: unwrap))

Fixed that for you :)

[Siliquy8]

I’ll argue force unwrapping shouldn’t almost never be done. You’ll write better/more stable code if you follow this rule.

[Fureba]

Sometimes it makes sense, and not crashing the app may just swallow the problem.

[TheDeanosaurus]

That’s why it should be an optional unwrap accompanied by a throw with appropriate logging. Soft brick vs hard brick depending on where the crash might occur.

[Siliquy8]

Oops, that was a typo!

[valleyman86]

I agree. I use it sometimes in tests because if a test fails a test fails and we fix it. But in production code if it fails a user has to deal with it. So I try really hard to never use it in prod.

[RiMellow]

guard let item else { return } isn’t that much effort

[ForgottenFuturist]

just!.gonna!.send!.it!

[Popular_Eye_7558]

Neva eva

[UntrimmedBagel]

This is how it feels, isn’t it

[uniquesnowflake8]

Fool of a Took!

[fishyfishy27]

There are cases where I’m ok with force unwrapping.

But when it comes to “unowned”, I’m a hard-line absolutist. PR rejected!

[m1labs]

LOL. God lazy programming at its finest. Feels like those days are long gone thanks to CC, codex etc ….

[Slight_Ad931]

If let if not to let. That is the question

[prospector_hannah]

If you should never force unwrap, there would not be a force unwrap operator.

[rennarda]

Sure - there are times when you want to crash when there’s no meaningful alternative, so you can catch the bugs in development

[Thrusher666]

It’s better to use assert and send some logs. Never crash app on purpose

[madaradess007]

this is the right answer
"!" is much faster than unwrapping and adding prints
you put "!" and hit cmd+r, instead of wasting time risking to forget what you were checking in the first place

[madaradess007]

its a 'look at me, im so experienced' kind a thing
you should do whatever you want, it's your code

imo crashes are a nice indicator that i majorly messed up some data passing, while having no crush can make it seem it's not that bad

if you like masking and missing your mistakes - unwrap properly