in reply to Re: Sherlock v0.1 in thread Sherlock v0.1
Meh.
Not nagging at you personally obviously, but I've found that the use of strict and warnings to be more of a pain in the ass than anything generally useful or even pragmatic.. Yeah, I know, blasphemy. I'm far from a god of Perl, but, imho, if you willfully choose to carry the use strict boulder around your neck, you end up unnecessarrily doubling your development time chasing down bugs that aren't really bugs; It's time spent satisfying an unnecessary and optional hurdle, since the code already works as designed. I often wonder if half the stuff I do really justifies the time required to do it....For quickie scripts (like this one) I usually don't bother.
Doing something collaborative, however, or mission-critical production level stuff, would be a different story obviously. In those circumstances, i'd consider it useful.
Maybe i'm just resentful. :) Thanks for the writeup, anyhoo. :)
Re^3: Sherlock v0.1
by Anonymous Monk on Jun 24, 2009 at 07:10 UTC
|
How is @history == NULL
not a bug?
In this case it works out because NULL isn't defined, but it isn't by design, it is by coincidence.
| [reply] [d/l] |
Re^3: Sherlock v0.1
by pemungkah (Priest) on Jun 27, 2009 at 06:01 UTC
|
Having programmed similar stuff in Perl 4 (pre-strict), I have to disagree; dorking around trying to find the place you misspelled a variable name is a pain in the anatomy. Let the computer show me the dumb mistakes; having to type three more characters to explicitly scope a variable definitely doesn't double my development time, and it definitely halves or quarters my "Why the ^$ did it do that?" time.
Less screwing around with easily-detectable errors means more time for developing fun stuff and blithering on Twitter and Perlmonks. So "yay" for strict, for me. | [reply] |
|