in reply to Re: Re: to strict or not to strict
in thread to strict or not to strict

Possibly I just dont like a compiler telling me how to code

The compiler does that whether you use strict, though! That's why this is not a valid Perl program:

Prin "hellol;
I'd rather debug myself and be better at coding for it

I think that's a rather shortsighted view and a rather lame excuse.

I expect good programmers not to waste their time wanking over manual tasks that the computer is much better at doing reliably. Do you refuse to write automated test suites because you want to demonstrate your mad debugging skills?

Maybe you never make any typos. Maybe you've never spent an hour searching for a problem that doesn't make any sense and finally realized that you wrote $customr when you meant $customer. Since you say, though:

most of my globals are probably unintentional..

I wonder why you wouldn't want something to catch your unintentional errors immediately.

I find it hard to believe that anyone who's written anything longer than Hello, world hasn't been bitten by those errors, and that's why I suggest that refusing to let the computer catch common mistakes is a waste of your time.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Re: to strict or not to strict
by castaway (Parson) on Oct 18, 2003 at 09:29 UTC
    Now you're picking holes in my ability to express myself. What I meant of course was, that I don't like the strict pragma telling me I cant use globals, symrefs etc. And not the compiler shouldn't correct non-language constructs.

    You're taking things a liiiiiitttle to extremes here, aren't you? I could counter with 'and if you took a programmer, that always used strict, warnings, etc. pp. and gave them a language without these helpers, something to debug, how well would you expect them to do, alongside someone that's always debugged more manually?' - But that'd just be silly.

    I like automated tests suites (not written any myself yet though), I wouldn't refuse to. There are always new or unexpected bugs though, even in code that conforms to strict. (As I wrote below, even if the code in itself is perfect, it doesn't mean it does what it's supposed to.)

    I make typos, I've spent hours searching for them (privately, and at work in languages which arent as clever as perl), note that 'name used only once', is a 'warnings' error, not one from strict..

    That last quote doesn't say anywhere that I think of 'unintentional globals' as errors.

    So let me waste my time.. Thats my perrogative, and it's my time, maybe I like wasting it? :)

    C.

    (I'm wondering if answering this is also wasting my time, I'm not trying to change anyones minds here..)

[reply]

In Section Meditations