> This isn't an addition to the language that you're talking about - it's
> changing some of the fundamental behavior of the language. It's saying
> that no longer is Perl a loose, powerful language - oh, you want B&D? well,
> we can do that for you too - but rather that Perl is just another
> conventional programming language, (although if you flip this switch,
> you'll get its old, horrible behavior.)
I never said it was its 'old horrible' behaviour. We've got to stop thinking
about this as a religious issue. I have no qualms with people using something
like '-q', hell, I'll use it myself. The only thing is that it has a
*huge cost*, this laxness by default. And the cost is not only technical:
1) diminished reputation.
2) misconceptions on news groups, mailing lists
3) wasted time, frustrations from users saying perl is 'quirky'
4) poorer quality of 3rd party modules, persistent bugs in them.
5) -w as pariah, ignored warnings.
In order to get the big, big, win. warnings have to be on by default, and they
have to be intuitive and easy enough to use by being on by default.
If that means we clean up both warnings (getting rid of some of the sillier
ones) and the method of using warnings up unto the point that they are flexible
enough *to* be included by default, well that's the price we will have to
pay in order for it to work.
If it means that we turn on warnings && strict on by default and give it a
'trial run' to get the perl community's feedback, get their positive feedback
and iterate that means we do that. Unlike most other changes that we decide
on, this one is *undoable*. If it doesn't work, and there is a big rebellion,
well, it doesn't work and there is a big rebellion. We say it was a noble
experiment and move on. But if it *does* work, then great.
There's no reason to feel betrayed - its a simple experiment: I think that this
is doable, and will help a lot. You think its not doable for cultural reasons.
Good - then let the culture decide. But don't sell it short until you've seen
it done. The least we get out of it is a cleaner, better warnings model and
a
Its all a matter of attitude, of selling people that its a good idea by not
forcing it down their throats but by presenting them with something and asking
them to use it, and getting their *opinion* on it.
As for innovation, I really don't know of any language that helps users by
pointing out potential mistakes...
And that's the last *I'm* going to say on the subject. I'm better off writing
RFC's...
Ed
