Yeah, there's a much better and cheaper way - don't name them, name the indices into @_ via constant subs, if you need names instead of numbers for sake of code clarity:

sub FOO () { 0 }
sub BAR () { 1 }

sub routine {
    my $bar = $_[BAR];
    $bar   += munge( $_[FOO] );
}
[download]

But it is crucial for that discussion to identify when it is beneficial to use named parameters, and why. I can think of:

• frameworks - you write code that gets called, and there's a convention for what each call brings along. POE is a good example
• looking up a subroutine or method - you want to make use of some subroutines you use seldom, and a quick glance should suffice to know what it needs
• myriads of options - but mostly you need just a few of them. Tk is a good example for that

All other reasons seem to be based on gusto. But then, in early perl OO, objects were mostly blessed hashrefs (tutorials and perl pods are full of them), and much unreflected use of named parameters stems from there, I guess.

_($_=" "x(1<<5)."?\n".q·/)Oo.  G°\        /
                              /\_¯/(q    /
----------------------------  \__(m.====·.(_("always off the crowd"))."·
");sub _{s./.($e="'Itrs `mnsgdq Gdbj O`qkdq")=~y/"-y/#-z/;$e.e && print}