I've removed 'use warnings' from programs as well, after getting tired of adding 'no warnings' all over.

I'm surprised; "use warnings" saved my a** a couple of times, and the overhead is really small :

$ wc -l *.p* | tail -n 1
  6949 total
$ grep "no warnings" *.pl | wc -l
8
[download]

I'd be interested in seeing what kinds of programs those are. Other than throwaways, I have very rarely run into problems with warnings. The most common warning I see is "undefined value used in ...", which is alerting me to a real bug. Sometimes, I think I should turn the undefined warning into a fatal error, but I'm too lazy to do it. :-)

---

My criteria for good software:

1. Does it work?
2. Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?

Here's a one-liner where Perl emits two warnings - both wrong.

 
$ perl -le 'use warnings; print ("$_") for qw /foo, #bar/'
print (...) interpreted as function at -e line 1.
Possible attempt to separate words with commas at -e line 1.
[download]

And yes, I know what the warnings are for. And I know how to code around them. The warnings are still wrong though.
Perl --((8:>*