Bryan C.Warnock wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Aug 2000, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 08:36:01PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > > > Keep default Perl free of constraints such as warnings and strict.
> > >
> > > I second this.
> >
> > I third this. Perl is not, nor do I believe it ever should become, a B&D
> > language by default. "Making easy things easy", remember that?
>
> I'll go a step further and state that Perl shouldn't mutate any of its
> features, at least on the language side.
OK, so maybe I'm taking up an unwinnable cause, but I
un{fourth,third,second,nominate} this. Maybe it's my mod_perl bias
speaking--the CGI scripts people post to the mod_perl list and say 'will
this work under mod_perl?' sometimes make me need a cup of tea and a good
lie down...
When I'm showing someone how to program for the first time, they more often
get things right the first time with 'use strict', and when something goes
wrong, they tend to find what's gone wrong faster. More importantly, when
they haven't had the mentoring to learn to 'use strict', and eventually
manage to cobble together a program that works, attempting to maintain that
down the track is near impossible.
Hey, I'm just as Lazy as the next perl hacker. But how hard is it to write
'no strict' if you want to? As I said in another thread, the People Who Know
What They're Doing know when it's OK to do this, whereas Mere Mortals can
use some hand holding, particularly when they're starting off.
Not sit down before I share with you this...--I've heard a nasty rumour that
there are even some people that think perl is a write-once, read many
language <gasp>. Well, we all know it doesn't have to be. So, let's
encourage the use of the perl we respect, while still making the perl we
keep in a dark place for when we're feeling naughty available for when we
want it.
Or wouldn't perl without the bad reputation really be perl anymore?...
