I too have started tending towards this view of things. strict is very important for anything beyond a 5-liner, but given that, warnings is really not as big a deal.

Quite a few warnings attempt to detect problems strict already covers. F.ex I've come to loathe the "used only once" warning. It has caught a typo for me maybe once (if at all - I doubt it), in contrast to the innumerable times I had to mention a correctly spelled variable twice just to make the durn thing shut up. Similarly, while I generally appreciate the warnings about undef values, it is a real pain in the rear to account for them in some cases - for me, usually in eq/ne comparisons where I explicitly want to tolerate undefs.

warnings are essential on the occasions you're not using strict; I tend to write oneliners with warnings enabled which has saved me from rather painful headaches in some rare occasions. But with strict enabled, I feel a lot of warnings become liabilities. That's my take on it these days, now that my frustration threshold has been passed..

I am very careful and hesitant to disable strictures and will try to do things another way if there is one, but I've basically been fed up with some warnings enough that I just switch them off when it's most convenient thing to do nowadays. Mind you, I don't usually disable them wholesale, I use the warnings pragma where I know that what I'm doing is ok.

At the same time I can't stress enough how important I consider strict to be. Unless you're doing seriously funky Damian-class stuff, you should enable strictures without even thinking about it, for anything past a oneliner. It has caught so many of my typos, thinkos, or other bonehead moments I am more than willing to pay the very rare and then usually trivial price of extra effort to make it happy.

Makeshifts last the longest.

 _  _ _  _  
(_|| | |(_|><
 _|