in reply to Re^2: strict, scope, my and foreach - not behaving as expected
in thread strict, scope, my and foreach - not behaving as expected

Modifying the program is not inherently harmful,
Not inherently harmful? I'd say a large percentage of bugs in programs comes from the fact someone modified the program. That's my point. If something is not broken, don't fix it.
but the fact is that it prevents a lot of subtle bugs that might not come up in normal debugging at all.
It was given that the program was working. I assume that the OP doesn't mean "it has bugs" when he writes "working".

Adding strictness on a working program is a bit like rebuilding the Egyptian pyramids because originally the construction workers weren't wearing safety harnesses.

Abigail

  • Comment on Re: strict, scope, my and foreach - not behaving as expected

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: strict, scope, my and foreach - not behaving as expected
by cfreak (Chaplain) on Jun 09, 2004 at 15:06 UTC

    The difference is no one is going to be adding on to the pyramids and even if they did the proper equipment could be used for the additional construction.

    New functionality may need to be added to the existing program, strict can help in that department but you would need it for the entire program. Plus just becase a program works doesn't mean it doesn't have bugs that could be caught by adding strict

    Everyone would be much better off if coders stopped writting code that "works" and instead started writting code that works well, scales, and is easy to maintain. Of course, since we are talking about humans, that's not too likely to happen soon :)

    Lobster Aliens Are attacking the world!
[reply]
[d/l]
[select]
      Yeah, the keyword here being additional construction. The OP wasn't talking about extending a program. He was adding strict for the sake of adding strict.
      New functionality may need to be added to the existing program
      Yes, but why spend time now for something that may not happen? It's not that if a program remains stable for another year, that you have to hit the keyboard harder if you are going to add strict in a year, when you do modify the program.
      strict can help in that department but you would need it for the entire program.
      Sillyness. use strict is lexically scoped.
      Everyone would be much better off if coders stopped writting code that "works" and instead started writting code that works well, scales, and is easy to maintain.
      Totally beside the point. The program has already been written. Besides, just slapping a 'use strict' on the program isn't magical wand. Writing easy to maintain programs that scale well takes a lot more than slapping 'use strict' on the program. In fact, there isn't much relation between them.

      Abigail

[reply]

        Yes, but why spend time now for something that may not happen?

        I agree. Now that you said that I just had to dig up this fine link that I like to give to my coworkers whenever they worry about what might happen down the road: you aren't gonna need it.

        -- vek --
[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom