The problem lies within the one liner code. But also some just don't understand it, and don't use perl often enough to care about it.
This issue was brought up in the Apocalypse for Perl 6: http://dev.perl.org/perl6/apocalypse/1 (scroll to RFC 16) RFC 16: Keep default Perl free of constraints such as warnings and strict. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 11:43 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: First and second rate programmers > > > Im a bit worried that a few of my statements have been > misconstrued, and I was > concerned that would happen when I first posted. Let me try > to clarify - and > I should also preface this with I am primarily a C/C++ > programmer (I'm > addicted to the Qt toolkit) who really uses perl only when he > needs it. > > I was not questioning whether one should or shouldn't "use > strict". In the > brief time I have spent coding in perl, I have learned the > hard way how > useful it is. > > my question is why the basic functionality of "use strict" > isnt directly built > into the perl compiler/interpreter? Why, for instance, isnt > it simply > required by perl to use "my" or "our" or whatever when one > first introduces a > variable? Sure, not using strict may save (advanced?) > programmers a few > keystrokes, but is that really the only reason? > > I'm sure that somewhere along the line, the designers of perl > had to have at > least considered this...and I'm also sure that they had very > good reasons for > having "strict" remain a module that one can choose to use or not use. > I would simply like to know their reasons. > > As for the perlmonks, as far as I'm concerned, that is one of > the best > computer language websites/cultures that I have come across. Almost > everything I know about perl has come from either that site > or this list, and > I admire the fact that you and your colleagues are willing to > hang out in > newsgroups like this and patiently answer questions from hard > headed newbies > like myself :) > > As for your remark about quality leading to correctness, I > couldn't agree > more. Jeez, I've read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle > Maintanance" 6 times. > > Respectfully, > Jake > > On Wednesday 05 June 2002 11:40 am, Ovid wrote: > > To all: > > > > Okay, there have been a few comments about the merits of > using strict, but > > I thought I would toss up a meta-argument. > > > > It's true that posters who post code without "strict" are generally > > reminded by several replies that they should have used > strict, but the > > respondents also usually try to answer the question. > Personally, I would > > never think of dropping a note to Lincoln Stein for not > using strict in > > CGI.pm or Damian Conway for not using strict in anything. > People who are > > reminded to use strict are usually (not always) people for > whom strict > > would be an enormous benefit. > > > > As for Perlmonks (brought up in one reply), the ones who > have been around > > for a while are usually very concerned not just about correctness (a > > program does what it should and no more), but also about > quality (a program > > that works can still be an unmaintainable piece of crud). > So, when I see > > someone who failed to use strict and then typed $recieved, > I'll point out > > the misspelling, but I'll also point out that using strict > would have > > caught that error *at compile time*, rather than have them > pull their hair > > out for hours trying to figure out what's buggy. > > > > Quality, thus, tends to lead to correctness. I could go on > for hours as to > > why this is the case, but really, who *doesn't* want > correct programs? > > > > I strongly recommend to every Perl programmer that they > should hang out at > > Perlmonks. Why? Because of a saying amongst mathematicians > (which applies > > very strongly to programmers, too): > > > > First-rate mathematicians want to hang around first-rate > > mathematicians. Second-rate mathematicians want to hang > > around third-rate mathematicians. > > > > The reason for that is left as an exercise for the reader :) > > > > Cheers, > > Curtis "Ovid" Poe > > > > ===== > > "Ovid" on http://www.perlmonks.org/ > > Someone asked me how to count to 10 in Perl: > > push@A,$_ for reverse > q.e...q.n.;for(@A){$_=unpack(q|c|,$_);@a=split//; > > shift@a;shift@a if $a[$[]eq$[;$_=join q||,@a};print > $_,$/for reverse @A > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup > > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- The views and opinions expressed in this email message are the sender's own, and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of Summit Systems Inc. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
