World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Design by contract

Article Id: WHEBN0000039289
Reproduction Date:

Title: Design by contract  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Eiffel (programming language), Praspel, Spec Sharp, Precondition, Liskov substitution principle
Collection: Programming Paradigms, Software Design
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia

Design by contract

Design by contract (DbC), also known as contract programming, programming by contract and design-by-contract programming, is an approach for designing software. It prescribes that software designers should define formal, precise and verifiable interface specifications for software components, which extend the ordinary definition of abstract data types with preconditions, postconditions and invariants. These specifications are referred to as "contracts", in accordance with a conceptual metaphor with the conditions and obligations of business contracts.


  • History 1
  • Description 2
  • Performance implications 3
  • Relationship to software testing 4
  • Language support 5
    • Languages with native support 5.1
    • Languages with third-party support 5.2
  • Notes 6
  • See also 7
  • Bibliography 8
  • External links 9


The term was coined by Bertrand Meyer in connection with his design of the Eiffel programming language and first described in various articles starting in 1986[1][2][3] and the two successive editions (1988, 1997) of his book Object-Oriented Software Construction. Eiffel Software applied for trademark registration for Design by Contract in December 2003, and it was granted in December 2004.[4][5] The current owner of this trademark is Eiffel Software.[6][7]

Design by contract has its roots in work on formal verification, formal specification and Hoare logic. The original contributions include:


The central idea of DbC is a metaphor on how elements of a software system collaborate with each other on the basis of mutual obligations and benefits. The metaphor comes from business life, where a "client" and a "supplier" agree on a "contract" that defines for example that:

  • The supplier must provide a certain product (obligation) and is entitled to expect that the client has paid its fee (benefit).
  • The client must pay the fee (obligation) and is entitled to get the product (benefit).
  • Both parties must satisfy certain obligations, such as laws and regulations, applying to all contracts.

Similarly, if a routine from a class (computer programming) in object-oriented programming provides a certain functionality, it may:

  • Expect a certain condition to be guaranteed on entry by any client module that calls it: the routine's precondition—an obligation for the client, and a benefit for the supplier (the routine itself), as it frees it from having to handle cases outside of the precondition.
  • Guarantee a certain property on exit: the routine's postcondition—an obligation for the supplier, and obviously a benefit (the main benefit of calling the routine) for the client.
  • Maintain a certain property, assumed on entry and guaranteed on exit: the class invariant.

The contract is the formalization of these obligations and benefits. One could summarize this approach by the "three questions" that the designer must repeatedly ask about the contract:

  • What does contract expect?
  • What does contract guarantee?
  • What does contract maintain?

Many programming languages have facilities to make assertions like these. However, DbC considers these contracts to be so crucial to software correctness that they should be part of the design process. In effect, DbC advocates writing the assertions first.

The notion of a contract extends down to the method/procedure level; the contract for each method will normally contain the following pieces of information:

  • Acceptable and unacceptable input values or types, and their meanings
  • Return values or types, and their meanings
  • Error and exception condition values or types that can occur, and their meanings
  • Side effects
  • Preconditions
  • Postconditions
  • Invariants
  • (more rarely) Performance guarantees, e.g. for time or space used

Subclasses in an inheritance hierarchy are allowed to weaken preconditions (but not strengthen them) and strengthen postconditions and invariants (but not weaken them). These rules approximate behavioural subtyping.

All class relationships are between client classes and supplier classes. A client class is obliged to make calls to supplier features where the resulting state of the supplier is not violated by the client call. Subsequently, the supplier is obliged to provide a return state and data that does not violate the state requirements of the client. For instance, a supplier data buffer may require that data is present in the buffer when a delete feature is called. Subsequently, the supplier guarantees to the client that when a delete feature finishes its work, the data item will, indeed, be deleted from the buffer. Other design contracts are concepts of "class invariant". The class invariant guarantees (for the local class) that the state of the class will be maintained within specified tolerances at the end of each feature execution.

When using contracts, a supplier should not try to verify that the contract conditions are satisfied; the general idea is that code should "fail hard", with contract verification being the safety net. DbC's "fail hard" property simplifies the debugging of contract behavior, as the intended behaviour of each routine is clearly specified. This distinguishes it markedly from a related practice known as defensive programming, where the supplier is responsible for figuring out what to do when a precondition is broken. More often than not, the supplier throws an exception to inform the client that the precondition has been broken, and in both cases—DbC and defensive programming—the client must figure out how to respond to that. DbC makes the supplier's job easier.

Design by contract also defines criteria for correctness for a software module:

  • If the class invariant AND precondition are true before a supplier is called by a client, then the invariant AND the postcondition will be true after the service has been completed.
  • When making calls to a supplier, a software module should not violate the supplier's preconditions.

Design by contract can also facilitate code reuse, since the contract for each piece of code is fully documented. The contracts for a module can be regarded as a form of software documentation for the behavior of that module.

Performance implications

Contract conditions should never be violated during execution of a bug-free program. Contracts are therefore typically only checked in debug mode during software development. Later at release, the contract checks are disabled to maximize performance.

In many programming languages, contracts are implemented with assert. Asserts are by default compiled away in release mode in C/C++, and similarly deactivated in C#/Java. This effectively eliminates the run-time costs of contracts in release.

Relationship to software testing

Design by contract does not replace regular testing strategies, such as unit testing, integration testing and system testing. Rather, it complements external testing with internal self-tests that can be activated both for isolated tests and in production code during a test-phase. The advantage of internal self-tests is that they can detect errors before they manifest themselves as invalid results observed by the client. This leads to earlier and more specific error detection.

Language support

Languages with native support

Languages that implement most DbC features natively include:

Languages with third-party support

Various libraries, preprocessors and other tools have been developed for existing programming languages without native Design by Contract support:


  1. ^ Meyer, Bertrand: Design by Contract, Technical Report TR-EI-12/CO, Interactive Software Engineering Inc., 1986
  2. ^ Meyer, Bertrand: Design by Contract, in Advances in Object-Oriented Software Engineering, eds. D. Mandrioli and B. Meyer, Prentice Hall, 1991, pp. 1–50
  3. ^ Meyer, Bertrand: Applying "Design by Contract", in Computer (IEEE), 25, 10, October 1992, pp. 40–51, also available online
  4. ^ United States Patent and Trademark Office registration for "DESIGN BY CONTRACT"
  5. ^ United States Patent and Trademark Office registration for the graphic design with words "Design by Contract"
  6. ^ Current status of United States Patent and Trademark Office registration for "DESIGN BY CONTRACT"
  7. ^ Current status of United States Patent and Trademark Office registration for the graphic design with words "Design by Contract"
  8. ^ Bright, Walter (2014-11-01). "D Programming Language, Contract Programming". Digital Mars. Retrieved 2014-11-10. 
  9. ^ Findler, Felleisen Contracts for Higher-Order Functions

See also


  • Mitchell, Richard, and McKim, Jim: Design by Contract: by example, Addison-Wesley, 2002
  • A wikibook describing DBC closely to the original model.
  • McNeile, Ashley: A framework for the semantics of behavioral contracts. Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Behaviour Modelling: Foundation and Applications (BM-FA '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2010. This paper discusses generalized notions of Contract and Substitutability.

External links

  • An introduction to Design by Contract(TM)
  • Benefits and drawbacks; implementation in RPS-Obix
  • C2 Wiki: Design by Contract
  • Class Contracts in Delphi Prism
  • PhpDeal Design by Contract for PHP
  • Contract language and tools for .NET
  • Damian Conway's Class::Contract Perl module from CPAN
  • Digital Mars Contract Programming (DBC)
  • dlib C++ Library
  • GContracts - Programming by Contract with Groovy
  • GNU Nana
  • Isaac/Lisaac Project home
  • Java Programming by Contract Class Utility
  • Bertrand Meyer: Applying "Design by Contract", IEEE Computer, October 1992.
  • Raphael Manfredi's Carp::Datum Perl module from CPAN
  • Using Code Contracts for Safer Code
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World eBook Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.